Opportunity Fair at SDC on June 6th

Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) and Area Board 4 invite everyone to Opportunity Fair 2012, Wednesday, June 6, from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., on the SDC campus (Nelson parking lot).

Opportunity fairs are held annually at SDC to present information about the variety of services and choices available to disabled people in the community. Over twenty-five vendors of services will be represented at this upcoming fair. There will also be games, entertainment and a food vendor selling a taco-style lunch ($7 - $10).

If you have any questions, you can contact the Volunteer Advocacy Services Coordinator for Area Board 4/SDC, Russ Long, by email at ross.long[at]sonoma.dds.ca.gov or by calling 707-938-6757.

---

About Area Board 4:

The State Council on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD), Area Board 4 serves the consumers of Napa, Solano and Sonoma counties.

According to the SCDD website, the State Council on Developmental Disabilities is established by state and federal law as an independent state agency to ensure that people with developmental disabilities and their families receive the services and supports they need. SCDD advocates for coordinated, comprehensive community services, individualized supports, and other forms of assistance and works to ensure full access to these services. Councils on Developmental Disabilities are established in each state through the federal Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act.

CAPT comes out in support of amending budget language

The California Association of Psychiatric Technicians (CAPT) issued a statement today in support of the Parent Hospital Association and our efforts to amend language in the trailer bill regarding state developmental centers. (See previous post, Concerns over proposed Trailer Bill language affecting DC clients and services, for more information on the legislation in question.)

According to the statement, CAPT believes "clients and families' voices should come first and foremost in any discussion regarding the professional services provided at our federally accredited developmental centers, or anywhere else. As such, proposed budget language as written raises numerous concerns for ourselves as nursing professionals and patient advocates, as well as for the families whose loved ones we serve at our developmental centers."

The group went on to list the following concerns with respect to the proposed changes for developmental centers:

• Further strengthening Department of Developmental Services' "deflection" practices away from Northern California developmental centers presents added costs for the state and hardships for clients and their families. Proposed budget language states that Fairview Developmental Center shall be the only developmental center authorized to admit a consumer in ate crisis, ignoring the professional crisis services available at other developmental centers. […]
• Continuing to severely limit admissions to Porterville developmental Center's state-of-the-art secure treatment facility leaves Californians with developmental disabilities locked in jails and prisons. The state's proposed language says that PDC cannot admit anyone in need to the Secure Treatment Facility unless the population is fewer than 230 persons total. […]
• Limiting admissions to "962 homes" further limits quality care options and choices for Californians with developmental disabilities. the proposed budget language limits the habilitation of "962 homes:" group homes specifically designed and staffed for individuals with developmental disabilities and related medical issues. […]

The group went on to say, "A recent court ruling out of Virginia should serve as a reminder for California in terms of residents and families' rights and choices on where they can live and receive services, not where federally financed attorneys and profiting agencies say they should. In that ruling, a federal judge has decided that families 'have a signifiant, protectable interest in receiving the appropriate care of their choice and protecting their rights' on behalf of their loved ones receiving developmental services."

(See News from Virginia: Department of Justice defends Va. institutions settlement on this blog.)

---

You can download a full copy of the CAPT statement here. (pdf)

Concerns over proposed Trailer Bill language affecting DC clients and services

As part of an apparent effort to reduce costs to the State General Fund while shifting those costs to federal waivers, California's Department of Developmental Services (DDS) has Proposed Trailer Bill Language Titled 652 Consumers With Challenging Needs, which has raised real concern in the developmental disability community.

While placement outside a developmental center may be a good option for some when the family and care team endorse it, requiring someone to endure a life-altering (and in many cases, life-endangering) relocation in order to obtain increased federal matching funds seems unreasonable and a strategy lacking in compassion.

In summary, as we read the trailer bill, it would make the following changes:

• DC's are not to be considered as the placement of last resort. Technically, this Bill closes the remaining DC's in 5 years without calling it a closure.
• The moratorium on placements into DC's is absolute, even for those in crisis or under court order. They even refuse to accept more placements into Porterville, with a max of 230 residents in the secured facility. 
• Fairview can only serve crisis individuals for 6 months, then they have to move out, unless the DDS Director herself signs a waiver. 
• 962 homes & delayed egress facilities will be developed across the state, but still only restricted to DC movers. 
• Crisis beds and homes must be made available to any regional center in the state, so if there is an open bed in San Diego for someone from Sonoma, they will be moved.
• Regional centers must do assessments on ALL DC residents who they have not assessed in the last year. Of course the goal is to start a plan for transfer.

Fortunately, there are opportunities to make simple and reasonable adjustments and we've listed some specific concerns and proposed solutions below. If you would like to contact legislators to urge them to consider making changes to the trailer bill, we have also included contact details at the end of this post.

Specific concerns (and proposed solutions) regarding the proposed language include: 

1. The DDS places “a moratorium on new admissions to the developmental centers” (from the 8-page “Proposal to Achieve Savings” summary).

Concerns:

• The summary begins with a reference to “preserving the Lanterman Act entitlements” yet, via this moratorium, goes on to deny, for individuals in a crisis situation, the option of a developmental center placement. DC’s have acted as a ‘safety net’ for crisis situations ever since the community-based service system was developed, fifty years ago. Where will these individuals fall if their safety net is removed?
• The trailer bill proposes development of new crisis and ARFPSHN homes across the state, to serve individuals with “challenging service needs”. In the Agnews and Lanterman closures, these homes required nearly two years to develop, from purchase to move in. Why would the DDS propose a moratorium effective July 2012 if development of new homes has yet to begin and will take 2+ years?
• A moratorium on admissions lacks compassion for those individuals who live in areas where alternative options are not accessible or appropriate (such as incarceration within the correctional system).

Solution: Delay the implementation of a moratorium until after alternative resources and homes have been constructed.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, effective July 1, 2012, Fairview Developmental Center shall be the only developmental center authorized to admit a consumer…”

Concerns:

• This mandate places families in northern California, who may need a crisis placement, in extreme hardship. Such a placement would prevent most families and friends from regularly visiting a loved-one placed at Fairview, especially when, during crisis situations, family and team support is critically important to the individual.

Proposed Solution: Make Sonoma Developmental Center available as a crisis resource for consumers living in northern California.

3. 4684.74 The State Department of Developmental Services shall only approve the development of Adult Residential Facilities for Persons with Special Healthcare Needs (ARFPSHN) that are directly associated with the community placement of developmental center residents.

Concerns:

• We applaud the DDS for creating additional ARFPSHN homes, a model that was first created for the transition of medically fragile residents out of Agnews. We simply ask why these excellent care options should be restricted to individuals being moved out of developmental centers? Many community individuals with challenging service needs would benefit from placement in an ARFPSHN home. 
• This limiting of placements to only DC movers created vacant beds at homes developed for Agnews’ movers, after the consumers living there died. Beds were empty for months while service coordinators searched for DC transfers, while local consumers could have benefitted immediately from placement.
• The success of the Agnews ARFPSHN homes was largely a result of knowledgeable, experienced staff that transitioned with the clients from the developmental center (over 120 state staff made this transition). Without the closure of a developmental center, the newly developed ARFPSHN proposed in this trailer bill will not have accessed to a pool of experienced state staff, which is necessary to ensure the well being of the consumers.

Proposed Solutions:

• Remove the reference in the trailer bill to ‘DC residents only’
• Add to the trailer bill a plan for a training program (possibly conducted at the DC) for new staff to be employed in the crisis and ARFPSHN homes.

4. 4418.25 b(2) Regional centers shall be required to provide DDS with information about all specialty resources developed with the use of Community Placement plan money and to make such resources available to other regional centers.

Concerns:

• During the closure of Agnews and Lanterman, one of the Department’s goals was to move individuals closer to their families. We applaud this goal and the resulting outcomes. The trailer bill language suggests individuals being moved out of DC’s (or those in crisis) would be placed at any regional center that had an available bed. There is no consideration for keeping the individuals, already confronted by a traumatic move, close to family and friends.

Proposed Solution:

• Add reference within the trailer bill to a seventy-five mile circumference for crisis placements.

5. 6000 (c ) Effective July 1, 2012 the DDS shall not admit any person to a developmental center pursuant to this section.
Concerns:

• Preventing admission to developmental centers for individuals under court order does not create alternative placements for these individuals. Where will they receive services, as promised by the Lanterman Act, after July 1, 2012?

Proposed Solution:

• Remove this reference from the trailer bill language, or at least define what alternative resource would be available to serve them.

6. 4418.25 c(2)Regional centers shall complete a comprehensive assessment of any consumer residing in a developmental center on July 1, 2012, who is not committed pursuant to 1370.1, has resided in a developmental center more than a year…

Concerns:

• Developmental centers conduct Individual Program Plans (IPP’s) for each consumer living there, on a yearly basis. The regional centers participate in these meetings, where comprehensive assessments are reviewed. Community placement is always considered as an option during these meetings, and regional center reps may suggest a potential placement, if they are aware of an appropriate and available option. Thus, this requirement seems to create a duplication of effort, as well as an undue burden on already overworked service coordinators.

Proposed Solution:

• Revise the language to read “regional centers shall review IPP’s and associated assessment of current DC residents…”

---

LEGISLATIVE CONTACTS:
Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services

Mark Desaulnier(chair) Dist 7, Walnet Creek, Antioch, SF East Bay)
(Room 5035)
 Senator.Desaulnier@sen.ca.gov
916-651-4007 (ph); 916-327-2187 (f)

Chief of Staff: Krista Pfefferkorn, Krista.pfefferkorn@sen.ca.gov
Leg. Director: Rosanna Carvacho, rosanna.carvacho@sen.ca.gov
Exec. Assistant: Cruz Cole, cruz.cole@sen.ca.gov

Elaine Alquist District 13 (San Jose, Silicon Valley)
(Room 5080)
916-651-4013(ph); 916-324-0283 (f)
Senator.alquist@sen.ca.gov

Bill Emmerson District 37 (Riverside County, East LA, Palm Desert)
(Room 4082)
916-651-4037(ph); 916-327-2187(f)
Senator.emmerson@sen.ca.gov

Sub-committee #3 staffers    
Room 5019  
916-651-4103
Michelle Baass: michelle.baass@sen.ca.gov (health)
Jennifer Troia: Jennifer.troia@sen.ca.gov (social services)

Assembly Subcommittee #1 on Health and Human Services   (Room 6026)   916-319-2099
Committee Members
District
Office & Contact Information

Holly J. Mitchell - Chair
Dem-47
Contact Assembly Member Holly J. Mitchell
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0047; (916) 319-2047

Wesley Chesbro
Dem-1
Contact Assembly Member Wesley Chesbro
State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0001; (916) 319-2001

Shannon L. Grove
Rep - 32
Contact Assembly Member Shannon L. GroveP.O. Box 942849, Room 3098, Sacramento, CA 94249-0032; (916) 319-2032

Allan R. Mansoor
Rep-68
Contact Assembly Member Allan R. MansoorState Capitol, Room 4177, Sacramento, CA 94249-0068; (916) 319-2068

William W. Monning
Dem-27
Contact Assembly Member William W. MonningState Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-002; (916) 319-2027

Bob Blumenfield - Dem. Alternate
Dem-40
Contact Assembly Member Bob BlumenfieldState Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0040; (916) 319-2040

Jim Nielsen - Rep. Alternate
Rep-2
Contact Assembly Member Jim NielsonState Capitol Room #6031, Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 319-2002

Health: Andrea Margolis, Andrea.Margolis@asm.ca.gov
Human Services: Nicole Vazquez, Nicole.Vazquez@asm.ca.gov

Northern California Singled Out In Latest Round of Cuts to Developmental Centers

circulated by Kathleen Miller, PHA President...

Yesterday I received a telephone call from Patricia Flannery of the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) to review the latest round of cuts to the developmentally disabled of California and the effects on developmental centers (DCs). While I am most grateful to Ms Flannery for her call I also know that generally her calls are to report bad news. This call was no exception. I want to share a few specific changes and hope that you will spend a few moments reading but also reacting to these proposed changes.


The first change involves a new no admissions policy to DCs. Sonoma Developmental Center gets very few admissions and this change does not affect current residents. It does mean another change to the Lanterman Act, specifically section 4418.7 and will state that there are only four exceptions to the no admissions rule. The first two only affect admissions to Porterville, which is the DC that receives most admissions anyway. The third exception is for provisional placements, a clause that is rarely used and used mainly at the behest of providers. It is the forth exception that is of most concern. It will allow for developmentally disabled individuals in “acute crises” to be admitted to DCs but specifically only to Fairview Developmental Center and not to Sonoma Developmental Center. If a family with a loved one in crisis meets the standard for DC admission and is allowed into a DC due to this crises, their northern California family must now make what amounts to an all day trip to even visit their family member in Fairview. Admitting only to Fairview does not save the state or DDS one dollar. Both Fairview and Sonoma currently serve those individuals who might meet the criteria for admission of acute crises, mostly individuals like my son who have dual diagnosis. All the “only Fairview” admission policy does is punish those who live in the northern half of California in a time of family crises. Please join me in explaining to both DDS and your state legislators how wrong headed this is. We oppose it not because it will have any effect on the outcome of DC closures but because it is wrong for families. As family members we know how important it is to hold together in times of crises and we support family!

Another change to the Lanterman Act focuses on section 4418.25. Again this is not a change that will save the state a single dollar but it may well increase distrust and friction between DC families and the regional centers. The change requires that a “comprehensive assessment” of all DC residents by their regional center. DC residents are already assessed well beyond those living in alternative settings. The real reason for this redundant new requirement, which may well place more pressure on the over burdened regional center staff, is to ultimately increase the pressure to place DC residents outside of the DCs. No doubt this increased pressure will mean more legal actions and increased costs to regional centers fighting desperate families. The real cost, however, is the further loss of trust of those families and the creation of an adversarial relationship between regional centers and the families and their disabled loved ones. If the DCs are to close then DDS needs to come out and say just that. Allow families time to plan and prepare for the difficult changes ahead. This back door policy serves no one.

Finally I object to the continuing trailer bills used to alter the Lanterman Act. The constant use of trailer bill language to weaken the protections of the Lanterman Act does not allow for visibility of the process. When I asked about just such a change in the current version of the Lanterman Act I was told by DDS that stakeholder meetings were the source of such changes. I recently attended a stakeholder meeting on the current budget and I heard nothing specific to the changes I have cited above.

Sonoma Developmental Center families! This is where I ask for your help. Time is short! Please contact Patricia Flannery at DDS at 916-654-1963 and your state legislators and let them know that:

1. You object to the fact that those individuals in “acute crises” who are to be admitted to a DC cannot be admitted to the DC near the family. This is an anti family provision that serves no positive purpose.
2. You object to residents of DCs being subjected to any assessment or oversight not provided to those in alternative settings. Furhter,it is time those in community homes and DCs share similar assessments and oversight.
3. Stop the constant back door changes to the Lanterman Act. 

Residential-choice bill H.R. 2032 needs California support

The California Association of Psychiatric Technicians put out a call this week asking California constituents to contact their representatives in Washington and urge them to support the residential-choice bill House Resolution 2032, which is making its way through Congress.

H.R. 2032 is a federal bill that, if passed, will restore decision-making rights of developmental center residents and their families and guardians in certain federal-funded lawsuits aimed at closing developmental centers. H.R. 2032 must first pass out of the House Judiciary Committee before it can be passed by the full House. There is already strong support among Republican Committee members – Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) is sponsor and member of the Judiciary Committee. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) are also sponsors.

Action Needed: Calls to California Judiciary Committee Democrats

Five Democrats from California hold key spots on the House Judiciary Committee. Two of these Democrats are past cosponsors of similar legislation. The five Democrats are listed below with their D.C. phone numbers.

CAPT urged constituents to call by Friday, May 11 if possible with the following, or similar, message:  “I’m calling in support of H.R. 2032, a bill that is presently before the Judiciary Committee. I urge Rep. ________ to tell Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith that he/she will vote for H.R. 2032 and urge Judiciary Committee action as soon as possible. The Chairman needs to hear from Democrats who will support H.R. 2032. I ask that Rep. _____ help in this way. Thank you.”

You may be asked if you are from the representative's district and you should answer honestly, indicating your connections to people with developmental disabilities in California.
Below are the names of the Democrats that need to receive many calls.

DEMOCRATS FROM CALIFORNIA ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Central California (San Jose area)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-16-CA) 202-225-3072

Southern California
Rep. Howard Berman (D-28-CA) 202-225-4695
Rep. Judy Chu (D-32-CA) 202-225-5464
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-35-CA) 202-225-2201
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-39-CA) 202-225-6676

---

California Association of Psychiatric Technicians: California calls urgently needed for residential-choice bill

Get ready, get set: the Sonoma Valley Footrace and Festival is May 12

The date for the next Sonoma Valley Footrace and Festival, which happens every spring on the grounds of Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC), is fast approaching. Scheduled for Saturday, May 12 - the same day as the next PHA General Meeting - it is less than two weeks away.

Are you ready for some fun?

There will be a 5K run/walk and a 10K race. The course for the 10K offers a challenging run, both on-and-off road, uphill and down through the beautiful area around SDC. The 5K course is solely around the SDC campus and is primarily a flat course.

The festival goes from 9 a.m.to 2 p.m. and includes food, beverages, a car show, carnival games, a kids’ fun run and live music. Admission to the festival is free.

For more information, visit Sonoma Valley Footrace & Festival on the web.