It was raised today, again, about the barrier to using SD in a congregant setting (one in which more than one client is served the same way.) I have the deepest admiration for the minds and hearts of people who put together California's SD waiver and even why they chose to proscribe traditional services. Ultimately, though, the point of self-determination is the assumption that the client can decide what supports fit best. That makes it pretty hard to reconcile with regulations (proposed) that tell the client what not to decide fits best.
The strongest advocates for SD also tend to be the most passionate opponents of the traditional service system. As such, I'm on their side and trust them to be on mine. Nonetheless, it seemed like a pretty insular development process and the community hasn't been given a lot of time to digest and respond and argue for changes. I wish that were different. I think a good product could have been better and more honest had it been written more in the sunshine.
*** Correction -2/10/2005 ***
I have been told by a good friend, whom I trust, that significant effort was made to have the development process be open and transparent. Apparently, there was steering committee and anyone who inquired was meant to receive drafts and invitations. I certainly accept that pretty good outreach doesn't always mean everyone finds out about everything and that the process may only have seemed insular to those of us who were interested but didn't find our way into the mix. Apologies to anyone who felt the comment above was inaccurate or unfair.