Tuesday, November 17, 2009

The (Draft) Ten Guiding Principles for the ICBM

At the request of Anonymous, here is the draft I received as the "ten guiding principles for the Individual Choice Bugeting Model Process." (ICBM) I am typing this all in so I expect Anonymous gratitude.

  • Reduces overall state General Fund costs.
  • Increases fairness, equity, and transparency in the allocation of resources.
  • Accounts for geographical cost differences.
  • To the extent possible, relies on existing state data systems and assessment processes.
  • Accommodates individuals with exceptional or unique care needs and their associated purchase-of-service costs.
  • Easy and efficient to administer for consumers, families and regional center personnel.
  • Does not jeopardize individual's health, safety and/or well-being.
  • Does not impose any unfunded mandates on participants, providers or regional centers.
  • Promotes individuals' ability to achieve and maintain living arrangements and work in the least restrictive settings.
  • To the extent possible, can be implemented within existing resources.

A few things I would note. First, just to cushion the sarcasm to follow, I'll just say that I don't disagree with anything listed and I don't mean to criticize the author(s) in particular.

With that said, I think it is less important what the principles are than that there are ten. This is clearly a document of good intentions, more than a design plan. It is also worth noting that with a maybe exception for the third principle, these are all principles designed into the traditional system as well. On the one hand, you can consider ICBM a useful attempt to try again. On the other hand, there is nothing in these principles to provide for anyone's optimism.

The last thing I'd point out is that nothing here refers to using unvendored supports, decreasing the involvement of the regional center or either providing relief from or adding to the current, expensive and unimpressively accountable regulatory system. So the pessimists I call my brothers and sisters and inanimate or ungendered kin can rightly justify a jaundiced expectation. If ICBM does constitute some sort of constructive reform, that feature will have been added later.

A couple of bonus thoughts at no additional charge: One is that the "unfunded mandates" line is interesting given that Counties and IHSS workers are running around buying fingerprint scans willy-nilly and typically at the expense of the provider. I wonder if this line exists in order to specifically lay to rest fears along those lines or whether the author intends it as comforting boilerplate.

Also, the fact that this is a draft of principles and was presented as current in November should maybe suggest to the providers of suspended services to consider other lines of work. If this represents the extent of the work, and it may not, that doesn't promise much in the way of quick development or expeditious deployment.


I recently received a note that DDS did not produce the document quoted above and cited below. This might be good news, as we can hope that the actual development process is further along than it seemed and may also be less obvious. The bad news is that most of what I have written in the two posts now seems frivolous and mean. Well, sort of bad and not at all news, but I do repent of the error.


stanley said...

over the decades, this is the most insidious attack (dismantling attempt) on Lantermam and its not sure its authors even recognize the evil they do...1984 Doublespeak PALES by comparison

apologies for over the top hype...but this is serious...the clue is in the comment: How the Law [Lanternman]Changed. see DRC #16: Fact Sheet on California*s Budget Cuts to Developmental Disability Services & Programs:

“How the Law Changed: Regional centers may not purchase the following services until the Individual Choice Budget Model is developed.”

Housekeeping: your typing appreciated...the authors should have put it on the internet...who are they?

stanley seigler

Ref xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
DRC California*s protection and advocacy system www.disabilityrightsca.org
Toll Free: (800) 776-5746
TTY: (800) 719-5798


#16: Fact Sheet on California*s Budget Cuts to Developmental Disability Services & Programs - July 28, 2009

Suspension of Services and Supports and the Individual Choice Budget1

[goto link for rest of story]

Doug said...

No idea who the author(s) is/are, Stanley. Maybe the legislature. Maybe DDS. Kind of has a stakeholder group feel, though, don't you think?

paul said...

"4648.5(c) An exemption may be granted on an individual basis [...] when the regional center determines that the service is a primary or critical means for ameliorating the physical, cognitive, or psychosocial effects of the consumer’s developmental disability, or the service is necessary to enable the consumer to remain in his or her home and no alternative service is available to meet the consumer’s needs."

Ah the traditional "exemption". Standing alone and viewed from a distance a good thing. The exemption provides a softening to the hard line rule that might produce undesired consequences. But – the Rub is “how” a regional center will “determine”, and will that “determining” process be applied fairly or arbitrarily?

Will we ever now HOW a regional center "determines"?

Do we have a right to know?

Who is "we"?

To steal a title from a well-known lobbyist…. I do not think that the “Other California” will suffer much, but rather the “Other ‘Other California”

When food is scarce there are always other rats.

Doug said...

True, Paul. I think if you don't work at a regional center, you generally don't know how any decisions are made. That might or might not be a problem but De La Torre is on the case, in this case.

stanley said...

[doug say] No idea who the author(s) is/are, Stanley. Maybe the legislature. Maybe DDS. Kind of has a stakeholder group feel, though, don't you think?

It kinda do...a stakeholder group with influential members w/ conflicts of interest...ie/eg, their child gets special treatment from RC/ARCA...not mention more monetary conflicts (at least not now)...another non mentionable, the control freaks who savor the status quo.

past time to shed more light on these conflicts...the harm they do begins to outweigh the good.

stanley seigler

Doug said...

A lot of control freaks favor change as well.

stanley said...

not when it lessens their control/influence

stanley seigler

Doug said...

Nope, Stanley, only if it increases their power/control.

stanley said...

The Arc of California November 30, 2009 Monday Morning Memo is now published on our website: http://www.arccalifornia.org/monday_morning_memo.htm

[MMM CLIP...for all the news pls goto ARC site]
The Week Ahead
Tuesday December 1, 2009
Terri Delgadillo, Director of the Department of Developmental Services will be hosting the Budget Advisory Group [BAG] to review the developments from the previous meeting. The main issue to be addressed has to do with the status of the Individual Choice Budget [Model], a service delivery model that will provide a block grant for services at a reduced amount. The ICB[M] is very controversial and concern is focused on the methodology for determining the budget, the voluntary nature of the program, and many other issues.

Any review news...who are the BAGs...any clues to the author(s) of the guidelies...

stanley seigler

paul said...

“past time to shed more light on these conflicts...the harm they do begins to outweigh the good.”

It is ALWAYS time to light.

Roughly 15 years ago some came realized that the light in one of the watch towers has never had a bulb, and that could be advantageous.

Who has the job the job of replacing the bulb to allow us to “to shed more light?” Many would like to think this DDS’s job exclusively. DDS certainly occupies one watch tower. Granted, that tower may have only a 20W bulb when 100W is likely need. But – that tower, in the least, casts some light in some direction.

What of the other tower? That tower belongs to a “special citizenry” and that tower will only get a bulb if the owners exercise the responsibility of that citizenry.

What is DDS to do? Descend on Sacramento during a protest and tell the protesters that your sign should say “This” and not “That”?

Should DDS MANDATE that a certain percentage of Townhall Telemeetings be dedicated to discussing the REGIONAL CENTERS, the entities that control 98% of the funding, and the majority of programing decisions?

If someone believes that X-mas causes autism should we wish for DDS, Big Brother to descend for some quick ECT, or maybe outlaw x-mass?

NO, no, and no - It was not meant to be so.

Can things get better short of prostrating ourselves to Big Brother. Sure, but it would likely not benefit the minority that decides what is on the signs, where we keep the bulbs, and where we shine the light.

We cannot work in the dark and we will remain the slaves of minorities until WE, not a big brother, make change.

we can play the game, give Doug a make-over (not that one is necessary Doug – it just regular operating procedure), have him strike a pose, snap a few pics, create a website, facebook page, twitter, and maybe even create a few snappy tunes.

Maybe a publicity stunt – Doug, come stay at the San Ysidro ranch, rack up a Big bill, and then skip town. That should get you on the front page.

Doug said...

Whoops, Stanley, I've been remiss again. As best I can tell that might be an ARCA document.

OK, Paul. But I might say seriously what you said in jest. I half think we'll all be professionally dead or made-over by April regardless at this point. But one thing I've enjoyed about having this blog has been the opportunity for honesty. A thousand more honest blogs might help a little. Because I agree with your last point, that we should not expect DDS to function other than the way that Executive Branch departments function. We should not expect ARCA, ARC, CDSA. SEIU, SCDD and the rest of our shortened alphabet to function except the way special interest lobbies function. Individuals make the best reprobates.

stanley said...

[paul say] What is DDS to do?

Obey the law:

4434b say: The department [DDS] shall take ALL necessary actions to support regional centers to successfully achieve compliance with this section and provide high quality services and supports to consumers and their families. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DDRIGHTS/message/4664

[doug say] Individuals make the best reprobates

unsure what doug say...ie, individuals make the best depraved, unprincipled, wicked identity; or they can best disapprove, condemn, or censure.

If the latter, my disapproval, condemnation, censure to initiate change pales by DDS authority/mandate to take ALL necessary actions

if the former...its a tie between systems and individuals.

Yeah I know Andy...here we go again...but I just don’t get it...why we fail to hold leadership responsible and blame the individual who has no legal authority.

am i responsible for the free market melt down...

[paul say] It is ALWAYS time to light.

For sure

[paul say] prostrating ourselves to Big Brother; X-mas causes autism; towers, light bulbs, etc...

beyond my IQ/pay grade to comprehend.

stanley seigler

stanley said...

[doug say] we should not expect DDS to function other than the way that Executive Branch departments function. We should not expect ARCA, ARC, CDSA. SEIU, SCDD and the rest of our shortened alphabet to function except the way special interest lobbies function.

Rhetoricals to ponder...

Sounds like we should accept the current unacceptable...or should we expect Short Alphabets to function per their mission statements (in DDS case obey the law) or per their hypocritical SOP.

ARCA for example:

The mission of the Association of Regional Center Agencies is to represent the autonomous regional centers in supporting and advancing the intent and mandate of the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. http://www.arcanet.org/

ARCA’s SOP examples: 1. increase eligibility requirements, thus eliminating service to some 400 on the autism spectrum annually. 2. support, if not actually recommending, cuts to DDS programs...possibly leading legs to believe cuts were recommended by DD stakeholders...

the intent/mandate of Lanterman is to provide programs as determined by an IDT and defined in an IPP: NOT to limit services and cut funds to already under funded programs staffed by direct care working for wages legs and Short Alphabet leaders would not consider...or consider laughable.

stanley seigler

Doug said...

Stanley, what I mean is this: You can spend a lot of time persuading people to act their missions not their compositions, but there are probably more efficient ways to make change.

stanley said...

[doug say] probably more efficient ways to make change.

probably...when time allows, any ideas

stanley seigler

Doug said...

Apparently not. I need to write a new post about something or other. If I can focus, maybe how to tell whether any thinking went into DDS' proposed cuts.

Andrew said...

Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned … it has been six or eight weeks since I last peeked in to Dougville.

I see that in my absence the level of clarity of the discourse has risen like Big Muddy in a week of Spring rains. This will not do … not do at all!

Next week I will be taking a short vacation and I will devote the better part of it to mucking things up around here … and I will shepherd this blog back to its former, formless glory.

If I have the time (I haven’t even glanced to see how much mucking needs to be done) I will give wings to a rant I’ve been avoiding for months: The edict of a callous god, decreed by DDS, to cap and eliminate middle-age for the most degraded, dismissed and deprived group of men and women the State has. (One cannot, in good conscience, call them citizens)

Money, or the lack of it, does not demand the selling of the soul.

Yours, in opposition ( … “whadya got?”)

stanley said...

[andy say] I haven’t even glanced to see how much mucking needs to be done

much mucking needed...but be careful mucking here is public domain...tho, your winged rant would be refreshing...maybe more appropriate over a bottle of tequila one day.

stanley seigler

Doug said...

Andy, we can always use more mud and Lisa Simpson.

Stanley, I actually can recommend hanging out with Andy and a bottle.

paul said...


“to support” is that the same as “force” or “coerce”?

If I tell my son or daughter that “[I] shall take ALL necessary actions to support [them] to successfully achieve”..a higher education, does this mean I can force them to go to one school or another?

Does that mean I can “coerce” him or her into having a major of physics rather than underwater fire prevention?

Can I bind my son to his chair and force him to do his homework?

Am I invited?
I think Andy only drinks White Zinfandel

Doug said...

Paul, I think absinthe is probably more Andy's style, but you're all invited to my place.

stanley said...

[paul say] “to support” is that the same as “force” or “coerce”?... Can I bind my son to his chair and force him to do his homework?

Not unless you want to be reported to child protection...that is unlessunless an IDT determined binding a child to a chair is quality programing...which is as likely as me wining the lotto...

The question sounds like one a tea bagger would ask...but perhaps I miss your point.

stanley seigler