The $10 Billion deficit the State is facing is likely to deepen rather shallow and most of the tricks we've been using for the last five years are no longer available. Cuts to the Department of Developmental Service's budget can be anticipated. It may be a short period of anticipation, too, relieved by midyear changes to the budget, although expecting the legislature to move too slowly is not unreasonable.
Whatever the cuts will be, they won't be smart. If we kept data on outcomes and the value added by programs and models to the lives of people with disabilities, the cuts could focus on the least helpful programs to preserve the most critical, helpful or useful. Since the only outcome metrics currently employed are the self-righteousness of the providers, clients and families, all indications are that every program and agency appears crucial and excellent, I am pleased to report.
If there were reasonable transparency, we could anticipate that those agencies that provide the most cost-effective care might be favored for referrals and some of the deficits made up by suggestions that those people with choices to make be encouraged to consider the cost. Since the referral process is not transparent, nor the evaluation process and the cost data is fairly meaningless, our only hope for absorbing cuts through information is the assumption that IPPs will be more thoroughly considered in the lean times. The good news is they won't be less thoroughly considered by and large.
So, the cuts are fairly doomed to folly. Another question, though, is will they save the state money? That is questionable. Lacking information on what works and what saves and what costs (a recent spreadsheet handed out at Assemblymember Buell's hearing in San Jose estimated savings to taxpayers from people with disabilities working but did not include estimates of taxpayer costs to find, create and support the jobs,) it is likely that this year's "cuts" will be of the normal sort, meaning services and supports that lower cost will be targetted equally with those that are relatively expensive and if rates are reduced it is likely to be by an even percentage, putting the low cost providers at disproportionate risk as compared to the high cost providers. In the end, without drastic moves against the Lanterman Act and its entitlement itself, the system will probably suffer a deficiency that, by a second year, may be greater than "cuts" written into the budget.
There would be a better way if outcomes were measured and information made usefully available to people with disabilities, their families, regional centers and providers. There would be a better way if there were a reliable means of accountability. Instead, the legislative and executive branches will do their level best without any useful information. My frustration will continue to be how little effort gets put into getting smarter.
For those of us who really want to see Self-Directed Services grow and prosper, though, there is a silver lining: The nags, scolds, sanctimonious pencil heads and vampires among us may accidentally wind up temporarily on the side of the angels.