Paul, maskless, brings up a very good point in the comments for the aging post below. He states "Since I have found wide and interesting interpretations of the Lanterman Act I want to start where I hope we can agree. Client or families [SIC] goals are not implicit entitlements under the Lanterman Act."
I'm inclined to agree. One of the challenges to the present system and any future better one is distinguishing between the outcomes of support and the results that are in the control of the end user. It is fairly clear and I suspect uncontroversial that the entitlement is to service and support for the purpose of moderating the affects of developmental disabilities on the lives (goals) of the individuals served. I might argue the proper outcome measurement for a service provider or regional center is a process measurement for the end user. The quality support may not have to result in a person with disabilities experiencing success, but in their succeeding or failing the same way a person without disabilities would.
And yet, much disenchantment is with the event that people with disabilities are still unhappy and/or unfulfilled after receiving services. Here lies one of the problems with using client satisfaction as an outcome. Another lies in the fact that achievers are rarely satisfied.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Especially yours, Stanley, you old crank.
Incidentally, Monday marked the fourth anniversary of this blog even if I didn't. Thanks to all of you have joined the conversation over that time.