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.