Wednesday, July 06, 2011

Did DDS cut something correctly?

When I hear from worried vendors concerned about cuts, much or most of the dyspepsia is over the limitation to 15% administration in negotiated rates. There certainly can be a case against that cut. People who live on their own and can't use the commonest forms of communication are highly vulnerable and for those of us who serve such people, their best protection is not the regional center, or the area board or in many cases families but oversight from the administration of their service provider. Furthermore, to the extent that we are careful and detailed as a system, there will be many cases when service designs will have to be revised to bring down overhead and those revisions may not have a smooth path to follow.

However, my instinct tells me that the greatest flaws in the budget-cutting regime over the last years has been the combination of rigidity with uncertainty. Consider my personal black beast, the new audit requirements. The cost of that requirement, it seems safe to predict, will reach the tens of millions of dollars per year systemwide in purely administrative costs. Those costs are real, certain, specific, mandatory and tangible. But the mechanism by which that requirement will save the state money is hypothetical. To be kinder, I suppose we could say hopeful.

By comparison, the 15% cap can be at least anecdotally supported as a way of saving money and the combination of vendor, client and regional center have a fair degree of flexibility to decide what features of the support should be sacrificed to reach a clear threshold. Of course, the same combination is also empowered to launder their way out of savings via reclassification of effort, but still. To the extent that it works, the cut can be tailored to protect the needs of the consumer, the competency of the provider and the preference of the regional center.

Apart from Stanley, anybody out there want to give DDS credit for this? Or are there other cuts that seem smart to you?

37 comments:

Doug said...

Paul, my email says you commented but blogger says you ain't.

But to reply to what I'm told you said, I agree 100% on the need for audits. I think regional centers should audit vendors and DDS should audit regional centers, both of which exist. I even think it's ok to ask vendors to buy their own audits but the assumption behind these is that they will find problems that can be fixed, saving the state money and it's hard to see that mechanism.

If my audit turns up a lack of control on spending, then maybe I can turn a profit next year but there's no mechanism for lowering my rate or putting any misspent funds back into the state coffers. For example, a few years back there was a big scandal over SVS and the enrichment of the founders. But did their rates change? And wanna bet SVS had an annual audit while all that was going on?

I'm assuming the guess is that people have been overbilling and will stop now. I am sure some people have been overbilling and that some of those people will stop. But I've had three regional center audits on exactly that issue which is a much more efficient way of catching overbilling.

I'm pretty sure the ultimate calculus is that some regional centers (looking at you, IRC,) have not been diligent and rather than put money into the headquarters budget to tighten that up or put money into the RC operations budget to tighten that up, it was spreadsheet efficient to just require us to do that and leave the higher costs out of the books.

But really I'm trying to pay DDS a compliment in this post. The audit requirement was just mentioned to illustrate how much better a cut like the admin cap can be by comparison to a bad one.

paul said...

“But really I'm trying to pay DDS a compliment in this post. The audit requirement was just mentioned to illustrate how much better a cut like the admin cap can be by comparison to a bad one”
That was my interpretation. It is a good post. It took me a while to find any potential way of being a contrarian. ;>)
“But did their rates change? And wanna bet SVS had an annual audit while all that was going on?”
You can lead a horse to an audit, but…
I now see your point re: “mechanism” more clearly I think. It brings to my mind the baby and its bathwater. Perhaps the baby being the audit and the bathwater the lack of a mechanism?

Doug said...

I think the metaphor I'd go with is playing pool with a noodle. The noodle being the audit and the savings being a carom into the corner pocket.

Anonymous said...

we continue to work on making the system more effective, efficient, and responsive; as doug said, we will now have providers under go an audit, spend thousands of dollars out of their reduced allocation to what end?

While AB 1244 had many flaws, and definitely the union wanted a foot hold in this arena, the overall concept of self-determination is and will be the true answer when you couple that with good circles of support, good person-centered planning, good person-centered work, the right match, good values, etc.

that is where we should be working towards not adding audits, or dealing with 15% admin issues, we are re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the titanic
jeff- be away from this blog for far too long

Doug said...

Jeff, you're right about that. Self-determination, bless it, is actually cheaper because of being more efficient. That's where I'd be investing.

paul said...

“...true answer when you couple that with good…et cetera, Etc. etc. ”

Jeff,

That is A LOT of coupling ...

I have no informed opinion about AB 2144. So - I will break culture and have no opinion. However, I would bet that it does not diverge too far from our same old pattern. I want to say same old ‘habits’, but I have become convinced that our patterns are not habits, but conscious choices.
Self-determination will probably work as delivery systems have worked in the past. It will work wonderfully for the people for which it works wonderfully. In this instance, it will probably be those people with sufficient ‘coupling’ and the chutzpa to have a chair at the table when the music stops. As you have mentioned, the union has a chair at that table too.

I disagree that the concept of self-determination or any single model, “is and will be the true answer.” because California’s consumer population is too wide and diverse, both traditionally and as to individual wants, needs, and desires. Such diversity precludes panaceas.

Doug said...

Paul, I sort of agree, but I'd walk it back a little. I think it's true that SD will work wonderfully for the people it works wonderfully for and be a source for abuse, waste and corruption for others.

But there's a practical reason why it saves money and produces better results for the people for whom it works wonderfully. If SDS is to actually exist (I'm not convinced the proposal on the table is actually SDS, you transfer authority and responsibility for quality from a regional center employee who has little direct experience of the services to a volunteer who experiences it all. It also transfers the responsibility for planning from a paid and ponderous administrator who gets most of his information after-the-fact to a volunteer who lives inside the plan.

That's a lot of money being saved in the process of improving likely outcomes.

Of course it will only work for clients who are good at analyzing, planning and communicating. But as long as it's a choice and there's some bias towards implementing it for people who benefit, it's the likeliest thing to simultaneously improve the system and lower its cost.

stanley seigler said...

[anon/jeff say] While AB 1244 had many flaws, and definitely the union wanted a foot hold in this arena...

tho i believe the union would be a plus in the arena...i do not understand why the union has to be mentioned in AB 1244...

the bill: "provides that support workers may form, join and participate in the activities of labor organizations of their own choosing" http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/analysis.html?aid=236663

[paul say] I disagree that the concept of self-determination or any single model, “is and will be the true answer.” because California’s consumer population is too wide and diverse, both traditionally and as to individual wants, needs, and desires. Such diversity precludes panaceas.

not if the intent of Lanterman and its IPP are followed/enforced...here i go again with the same old over and over again: lanterman say: ABC KISS
A. interdisciplinary team determines needs
B. RC find efficient programs to meet needs
C. legs fund programs...or tell the least to go to hell

BTW my opine the micoboard concept would be a good model.

stanley seigler

paul said...

“if the intent of Lanterman and its IPP”

I disagree. Lanterman or its intent cannot be a panacea because it is merely a design. A working system provides solutions (and potential panaceas), not a system design or the intent behind a design. Lanterman is a design and the ‘intent’ of Lanterman is another step removed.

Building materials limit system designs and the success of the design's intentions. A system may be under-designed, and destined for failure, when it underestimates the weaknesses and availability of building material. A seven-story adobe building will likely not fair well, any intentions notwithstanding.

stanley seigler said...

[paul say] I disagree. Lanterman or its intent cannot be a panacea because it is merely a design

dont understand your concept/definition of "merely a design"...are you serious or what am i missing...

everything is the result of "merely a design"... planes, ships, buildings, laws, acts...

and intent is the basis for most designs...judges' decisions are partially (some times totally) based on legislation (the law's) intent.

the design and intent of lanterman is not enforced...the panacea is action in accordance with the law and intent of lanterman...see "The Hijacking of the Lanterman Act for the Developmentally Disabled"...an excerpt:

"One potential bright spot in this time of fiscal crises is that there is an opportunity to make adjustments as a means of doing more with less money while promoting the development of a regional center system that is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Lanterman Act." http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/print/8835

perhaps the reason lanterman is not "consistent with its spirit and intent"...is many have your opine lanterman is just "merely a design"...

stanley seigler

design definition:
a : an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding

b : a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something as a scientific experiment...[as in laws such as lanterman]

stanley seigler said...

[stanley say] dont understand your concept/definition of "merely a design"...are you serious or what am i missing...

i was missing the second paragraph..."A seven-story adobe building will likely not fair well, any intentions notwithstanding."

so guess the argument is poor design v. poor implementation...

which leads back to my opine if the intent of Lanterman and its IPP are followed/enforced...there will be system improvements...

the lanterman design (ABC KISS) is sound...as mentioned in "The Hijacking of the Lanterman Act" it is NOT built in accordance with design/specs...and the building inspector (DDS) has not insured proper materials/applications have/are used.

BTW perhaps The Hijacking of the Lanterman Act suggest ways to insure design/spec are implemented.

stanley seigler

paul said...

“…so guess the argument is poor design v. poor implementation...”

No.

No matter how well you implement the design for a seven-story adobe it will fail because manure and straw bricks cannot support seven stories.

paul said...

Stanley,

I have made the mistake of visiting a blog more than twice today, and I am home alone. So - I take another crack at it...

“…so guess the argument is poor design v. poor implementation...”

I am uncertain if you imply that I am arguing design v. poor implementation, that you are arguing design v. implementation, or that you think it is paul v. stanley somehow. Regardless, I will say 'none of the above' because I cannot render our complex delivery system into such a simple dichotomy.

Parts of Lanterman are probably well designed and well implemented. Parts of Lanterman are probably well designed and poorly implemented. Parts of Lanterman are patently defective, were so from the beginning, and continue to be defective today. Such defects cannot be cured through ABC or KISS.

stanley seigler said...

WARNING TO ANON: do not read further...its stanley seigler with the sameold, sameold...over and over and over again...sorry.

[paul say] Parts of Lanterman are probably well designed and well implemented. Parts of Lanterman are probably well designed and poorly implemented.

this is all i have said/are saying...sorry if i misinterped point of 7-story adobe...

is ABC-KISS the panacea...ie, is the design properly implemented a solution...well, at least, an improvement.

you seem to think not...i think so...

hijacking say: "Fealty to the intent and purposes of the Lanterman Act means that regional centers must be willing to advocate for consumers against school districts, insurance companies, vendors, and even DDS itself."

RCs have never had "fealty to intent and purpose" and neither has DDS...ie, design never properly implemented...except for paperwork, maybe.

but i do realize there will be NO "Fealty to the intent and purposes of Lanterman" by RC or DDS...the design (intent and purpose) will not be implemented...so the least will continue to get the wrong end of the stick, while;

paul/stanley, etal, discuss ad nauseam reasons why design wont/will work...vice insuring leadership implement design...enforces lanterman...insures fealty to the intent and purposes of Lanterman.

ASIDE:
[paul say] that you think it is paul v. stanley somehow.

never has been personal with me but others have made stanley the issue in the past...glad this was/is about design v implementation...and whether ABC-KISS is a solution...in sum, to the bottom line: about a quality life for those with disabilities.

stanley seigler

paul said...

“you seem to think not..”
This conclusion is overbroad. I do not believe that ABC and KISS is a remedy for ALL our disease or ills (panacea). Because I do not believe ABC and KISS is the remedy for ALL our ills that does not mean I think it cannot be a remedy for SOME of our ills. I think that it can.

As I stated in the previous post, I will not reduce causes of complex problems to a simple and false dichotomy. The same goes for solutions because altering implementation cannot solve a design problem (interestingly enough an implementation problem may be solvable with a design change). I am sure that at times ABC and KISS is a solution, other times it is not a solution. At times ABC and KISS can perhaps even be a problem. This is I think were we disagree.

“RCs have never had ‘fealty to intent and purpose’”
A serious discussion of our problems begins with an honest assessment of all possible causes. If Regional Centers are supposed to take the high road, but they do not, we must AT LEAST entertain the possibility that we have inadvertently (or deliberately) designed a low road into the system, which is a path of least resistance. If you are correct in that the Regional Centers have never had ‘fealty to intent and purpose then I think that is evidence of a design problem. A design problem needs a design solution. ABC KISS, by your terms, is an implementation solution, and an implementation solution cannot solve a design problem. The fact that we cannot solve a design problem by altering the implementation of the design is direct evidence that ABC KISS cannot be the solution to all our ills unless you believe the Lanterman Act to be a PERFECT design(many do – I do not). Asking the regional centers to “do the right thing” and (ABC KISS) will not solve a design problem. I think that history evidences this fact.

If the success of the regional center system is contingent upon Regional Centers fealty to intent and purpose, and, as you state they have, never had ‘fealty to intent and purpose, then I think that is evidence that our design has overestimated something.

After an honest assessment it may turn out that there is nothing wrong with our “proverbial mousetrap” as some advocates believe, or at least purport. However, we will never know without an honest and complete assessment of our mousetrap (The Lanterman act). While some believe that his has been done I think it has not, with emphasis on the honest requirement. There are several reasons why we do not honestly assess our system, but that is not a discussing that can happen on a blog.

Anonymous said...

[paul say] “you [paul] seem to think not..” This conclusion is overbroad.

maybe...but all your comments seem to indicate otherwise...

[paul say] we must AT LEAST entertain the possibility that we have inadvertently (or deliberately) designed a low road into the system...

why must we...there is NO designed low road in lanterman...what do you see as the low road design.

[paul say] an implementation solution cannot solve a design problem.

what is the design problem in lanterman...what could be more simple than ABC-KISS (see previous post)

[paul say] “never had ‘fealty to intent and purpose, then I think that is evidence that our design has overestimated something.

it is evidence we have not called DDS/RCs on not implementing the design...frank lanterman and art bolton were very astute in writing the lanterman act...

we have been stupid in our 40 years implementation...based on cost cutting not on program quality.

have more...but as said before this is becoming a paul/stanley discussion in which no one else is interested...so more that willing to continue off blog or on DDRights...butbutt;

will conform to doug's opine

stanley seigler

stanley said...

had to get the following in before doug called a halt...OK so i was overboard.

[paul say] altering implementation cannot solve a design problem (interestingly enough an implementation problem may be solvable with a design change).

agree with statement...not with implication lanterman has a "major" design problem...tweaks are needed, but the base ABC design is sound:

A. interdisciplinary team (IDT) determines needs. B. RCs finds programs to meet needs. C. legs funds programs or tells the least to go to hell...sorry for the overover sameold.

so basic, that all programs should be written around this requirement.

OK, there is a major design problem...there is no requirement that society's priority shall be a quality life for the least vice cheap plates for hummer owners...and;

there should be a requirement for an periodic (annual maybe) honest assessment.

my interpretation of a honest assessment: lanterman be reviewed section/paragraph by section/paragraph asking of each does this requirement help the least...and if the answer is no...then delete it.

CA dreaming: honest assessment, compassionate priorities, proper implementation of lanterman...

stanley seigler

paul said...

“…or tells the least to go to hell...”

“no requirement that society's priority shall be a quality life for the least vice cheap plates for hummer owners...”

Stanley,
Can you think of any reason, other than everyone is cater-cousin to Beelzebub (“…or tells the least to go to hell...”) for failing to submit actual cost to the legislature?

Does any member of society have an acceptable reason for being thankful that the sales tax, license Fee, and increased income taxes expired June 30th, or is everyone ONLY thankful because they want, “cheap plates for hummers instead of ‘quality of life’ for the least.”?

Is it ok to be thankful for June 30th because you did not have to put your registration fee due July 7th on a credit card as a result of the lowering of the vlf fee?

stanley said...

[paul say]...Can you think of any reason, other than everyone is cater-cousin to Beelzebub (“...or tells the least to go to hell...”) for failing to submit actual cost to the legislature?

not sure i understand the point...i have no idea why DDS/RCs do not submit actual cost to the legs...but SCDD say;

"SCDD 2002-2006 Plan: Regional center budgets are not built upon the collective needs of their consumers, but on a 1970's funding methodology based on historical expenditures and caseload growth."

think SCDD 2007-11 plan say same, but cant find in right now...

will have to leave it up to you if..."everyone is cater-cousin to Beelzebub"...or dont give a damn a-holes.

[paul say]Does any member of society have an acceptable reason for being thankful that the sales tax, license Fee, and increased income taxes expired June 30th, or is everyone ONLY thankful because they want, “cheap plates for hummers instead of ‘quality of life’ for the least.”?

another point i dont get...but to your question as stated: NO acceptable reason except greed! Donno what they are thankful for but fairly obvious what their priorities are...

especially if they claim to be christians in this "christian" nation...

perhaps being a hypocrite does make one beelzebub's friend/disciple...perhaps wormwood or another of screwtape's disciples got to them...

apologies if i have missed your point...

stanley seigler

paul said...

“apologies if i have missed your point...”

No point, only questions (questions can actually not be rehetorical) to understand your position more clearly.

Thanks

stanley said...

back to subj

[doug say] Or are there other cuts that seem smart to you?

where do i find the 15% cap and other cuts information...

[doug say] By comparison, the 15% cap can be at least anecdotally supported as a way of saving money and the combination of vendor, client and regional center have a fair degree of flexibility to decide what features of the support should be sacrificed to reach a clear threshold.

dont know much about provider/RC negotiations...but from another life have experience with construction contract negotiation (CCN)...based on this not sure the 15% cap will save money (ditto most cuts).

most CCNs were for lump sum contract...but for most all contract extras and some cost plus CCN there were caps...eg, 15% on overhead...but

the caps really didn't mean much...could always pick up money adding a few hours here and there...and throwing in things such as equipment rentals.

when time/inclination exist, perhaps someone can summarize some poignant points (PPs) re RC/provider negotiations...to reach a clear threshold.

stanley seigler

Doug said...

Oh, they all save money, Stanley. Where the Trailer Bill Language fails to help anything, Regional Centers just cut ILS, Respite and community-based day programs to compensate.

stanley said...

[doug say] Oh, they all save money, Stanley. Where the Trailer Bill Language fails to help anything, Regional Centers just cut ILS, Respite and community-based day programs to compensate.

not fast on the up take these days...so not sure the comments are facetious or not...for the "or not" case: short term maybe saving, surely increased suffering; long term added cost, pain and suffering...

how do the ISL, etc, cuts affect the IPP contract...how do RC/providers make up the difference in cost-cuts and cost required by IPP...

stanley seigler

Doug said...

Stanley, you've appraised the situation perfectly.

As to how providers cope with the cuts, I'm hoping to get a job at a gas station.

stanley said...

[doug say] As to how providers cope with the cuts, I'm hoping to get a job at a gas station.

hope you can find a job in a gas station...but if not:

shouldn't providers take a stand that cuts prevent them from providing programs required by IPP contract...isnt RC required to provide programs stated in the IPP contract...

providers need a union or strong provider association...go on strike if necessary...

stanley seigler

paul said...

“...go on strike if necessary...”

Interesting

Stanley,
What would a provider strike look like? If a provider went on strike (presuming that there was no breach of contract) what would happen to the consumers served during the strike? What would prevent a Regional Center from moving the consumers served to the provider two streets down and three over?

stanley said...

[paul say] What would a provider strike look like? If a provider went on strike (presuming that there was no breach of contract) what would happen to the consumers served during the strike? What would prevent a Regional Center from moving the consumers served to the provider two streets down and three over?

would look pretty nasty...and as we know it wont happen...buttbut continuing the theoretical...

the special needs children/adults would suffer short term vice the now long term suffering...then die listening to the hypocritical "voodoo economics" crew destroy the intent of lanternman/IDEA...

stanley seigler

stanley seigler said...

ps.
suffer short term in the legs offices and on the senate and assembly kearing rooms...let the cops cuff them and haul them off to jail...

stanley seigler

Andrew said...

Is it too much to ask of one you guys to shoot a brief email my way whenever signs of life begin to stir, no matter how briefly, on DD Reform?

I'm sorry, but I simply can't drop in on a frequent basis to check and see if anyone's posting anything. I found that out the hard way when the first few of the recurring long, dark winters began descending on this blog, a couple of years ago. I didn't realize the risks it posed to my psychological and emotional lives by rushing to DD Reform each day, and sometimes twice each day, to peer into the void and scan the blog's barren landscape for the posts and patter of old friends. The silence and death, blinding white-outs, and all-consuming frozen stillness of those first frigid winters greeted me each day like some White Reaper.

Persephone Day marks the time each year when the Greek goddess returns to earth from the Underworld. As she ascends from the darkness, so too rises the sap in the trees. The first, dewy grasses sprout and emerge from brown fields as small buds appear on the naked branches and vines. Upon her return to the world, Persephone brings to us a new Spring and the reawakening of the earth.

Doug ... are you bringing us a new Spring? Or is this just a short, snowbird's getaway to Cancun from our life on an inhospitable homestead in Northern Minnesota? Can I start calling you Persephone? Or should I refer to you, like the White Reaper, as Big Whitey?

I'm impressed by the number of responses your return to the blog has brought. Twenty-eight comments is a lot of sap rising. A good start to Spring ... if that's what this really is.

I suppose it's probably bad form to pop in and drop a bad mythological metaphor and then leave without commenting on your topic. Audits and admin. caps, huh?

I didn't think either of these requirements were established for cost savings. I assumed they were the reaction to the "transparency" fad of the past couple of years. With the stories on SVS, allegations of regional center nepotism and favoritism, et. al., calls arise, like sap in dormant trees, to bring in the State Auditor's Office for a full accounting of what's really going on. One responds by expressing due concern and welcomes the assistance of the SAO (if one is a state department). Upon reviewing the findings of the SAO, one demonstrates decisive action by providing us with these two comprehensive solutions. The admin cap solves any efficiency problems and the audits address all of the transparency issues.

I'm with you, Persephone, I don't see where there are any savings from these things. That's why I assumed they were spawned by things less directly budgetary. Although, they seem equally poor solutions for any other possible issue too, who knows?

That said, I will give DDS some credit for a couple of other things they did, unrelated to the two lead balloons of your topic. Though I haven't looked real closely at the "tailored and vouchered day services" in the Trailer Bill Language, from what I've glimpsed they seem to have the potential to be pretty decent and pretty flexible options, while providing some savings. Not only that, by putting these options in place, DDS admitted and corrected their mistake of a couple of years ago when they mandated that all day programs offer their clients two terribly conceived new program options. One allowed middle-aged people to instantly become senior citizens (receiving less support than the day before) and I've forgotten the bizarre conception and purpose of the second option. It was another "work will set you free" initiative.

I am honestly impressed by this admission and correction by DDS. We all make mistakes. When they become obvious, fix them. That's all most people ask. Cross your fingers and in a couple of years maybe audits and admin caps will give way to something useful.

Happy Persephone Day, everybody!

Andrew said...

I just exerted the effort to find out about receiving auto notifications of blog activity. Sorry if my request of you fellows sounded a bit snippish.

ap

stanley said...

[andy say] I don't see where there are any savings from these things...they seem equally poor solutions for any other possible issue too, who knows?

are there savings in any of the budget quick fixes (BQF)...most/many/all are short term savings illusions...the long term cost increases are not an illusion.

there is never any proof of the saving/cost (long/short term) for any BQFs...

perhaps the phantom knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men(BQF dumb-a**es)

stanley seigler

paul said...

" ... IPP contract"
-Stanley-

When did the Individual Program Plan (IPP not IPC) become a contract? I have seen this stated here and elsewhere. Did I miss something? I understand that advocates often use rhetoric as a persuasive tool. Is this what is being done here? I have never seen anything from DDS, Lanterman, or Title 17 that calls the IPP a contract

Unfortunately, advocates often, after a period of time, begin to believe their own rhetoric. With a twist of irony, that rhetoric may become a tool that misinforms.

stanley said...

[paul say] when did the Individual Program Plan (IPP not IPC) become a contract?...I have never seen anything from DDS, Lanterman, or Title 17 that calls the IPP a contract...[contract rhetoric] a tool that misinforms.

contract is my interpretation of the IPP...DDS/RC and consumer should consider it as such...

it is an agreement between parties stating what is required by the program plan (ie, a contract)...need to change IPP to IPPC

no misinformation useing contract to define the IPP... au contraire the IPP contract is rhetoric that informs...anyway;

a rose is a rose is a rose...A rose (an IPP) by any other name (if enforced) would smell as sweet

sad many feel it's just more paperwork...this "it just paperwork" rhetoric, sometimes fostered by the providers (eg, valley village who kicked kath out because of her irrational parent)...is the misinformation.

stanley seigler

paul said...

"a rose is a rose is a rose..."

Unless my memory of Juliet is wrong...precisely. A rose is a rose, even if you call it a Geranium. The same hold true for the IPP. A plan is a plan, even if you call it a contract.

"it is an agreement between parties stating what is required by the program plan (ie, a contract)...need to change IPP to IPPC"

Stanley,

It takes more than an "agreement between parties" to make a contract. To "change IPP to IPPC" is far short of what is necessary. While an IPP may rise to a contract in some individual circumstances, generally it is not a contract. Calling something a contract, that is othewise not, does not magically make it a contract.

The IPP is not a contract, but that does not reduce its importance. It should not be relegated to the status of "just more paperwork". To view the IPP as such is improper, and if it is viewed as such by a regional center or vendors, then we have a problem that money cannot fix. Because money cannot fix such a culture a solution must come from someplace other than the bank.

"no misinformation useing contract to define the IPP... au contraire the IPP contract is rhetoric that informs...anyway;"

A valid contract gives rise to particular enforceable rights, obligations, and remedies for breach. Calling the IPP a contract is not "rhetoric that informs" when a consumer goes into a fair hearing and argues that the IPP is a valid and binding contact (believing he or she has particular enforceable rights, obligations, and remedies when he or she does not). Sadly - I have seen this happen. In some instances the appeal would likely have gone differently had the advocate not been misinformed. An advocate is at a disadvantage when he or she argues with little more information than what he or she could muster from the favorite blog.

stanley said...

[paul say] It takes more than an "agreement between parties" to make a contract

you say plan...i say contract...

i say contract to enhance the IPP...yo semantics weaken the IPP...not sure why you would not want to strengthen the IPP...

the IPP is a contract in every sense of the word...except yours.

ohand, all you say re contract applies to the IPP as well.

[CLIPS fr somewhere]
...the elements of a contract are mutual assent and consideration...an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified...

a rose is a rose...call it what you want.

stanley seigler

paul said...

"...not sure why you would not want to strengthen the IPP..."
Stanley

And not sure whay I HATE roses...

It is nice to have the old Stanley back. I was starting to worry

stanley said...

[ARC-CA say] The Arc of San Diego is sponsoring upcoming IPP training with the group, "Keeping the Lanterman Promise[KTLP]". The training is called, "Our Contract with California" which will be a presentation you won't soon forget on how to make the Individual Program Plan (IPP and IFSP) work for you, even if it hasn't until now.

COMMENT
a strong, enforced IPP (contract):) is the key to Lanterman and appropriate services for our children and friends...if IPP enforced most other regs could be eliminated...

another state's DDS reduced its regs from 130 to 30 pages by asking question of each reg: "does this help the consumer"...if answer: NO...reg was deleted...figs not guaranteed...but good enough for a ball park point...

stanley seigler