Looking forward to 2010

Well, heck. The new year will bring new cuts. We all have known that for a while and none of us have any excuse for not being ready for them. I just updated my resumé, for example. I do hope people understand that the next round of cuts proposed might eliminate entire programs and, perhaps, state departments. But for my optimistic year's end post, I'd like to suggest criteria for guessing whether DDS thought through the cuts it is about to propose:

If the cuts proposed have been (tragic but) thoughtful:

1. Rates will compress toward the low end, not fall by a fixed percentage.
2. In explaining the cuts, resistance by large lobbying organizations won't be mentioned.
3. Those will be least affected who are most urgently in need.
4. The package will contain not only clear descriptions of what regional centers are to do differently, but enforcement mechanisms for reining in inventive interpretations or, at least, an expressed and manifest willingness to publicly side with other stakeholders some of the time.
5. Andy Pereira will need to think a short while before ranting.
6. Some non-residential agencies may actually close.
7. Contrary to the "furthest from the client" meme, the scope of support will narrow more than oversight fades.
8. Many members of the cost-cutting stakeholder group will complain that they weren't listened to and mean it this time.
9. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) approach, Individual Program Plan (IPP) primacy and fair hearing rights will be strengthened.
10. The limits on the IDT and IPP will be clarified, in terms of requiring a clinical and practical rationale for support.

To expand on my thinking (apart from my comment about Andy- you just gotta know Andy,) ideology will not produce a budget solution nor a human solution. To get both, consideration must be applied to efficiently shrinking the system, maximizing cuts realized (rather than scored) and minimizing disruption acknowledged (rather than ignored.)

The first challenge is that we have spent years in denial that any change to the system is necessary and one result of that is that the map of the system isn't much more detailed than it was 9 years ago when I got here (and when the map showed "Here be dragons" across the state.) So there is no real possibility that the changes to be proposed will be wise or wholesome.

That said, some common sense can be applied. It is clearly better to retain a decreased number of low-cost support agents than to continue trying to keep all the state's executive directors employed. This is why a downward compression of rates is wiser than a fixed reduction and why it is better to restore the clinical and practical requirements to the scope of a client's service than to list categories of service to be discontinued.

Because we can't describe our current reality (without lying, exaggerating or generalizing beyond the scope of surrealism,) it is important to retain whatever intelligence the system does feature. This is why both quality assurance and the ID teams remain an important feature. There's also some hope to be had that if the system shrinks more than its smarter features, the system itself can grow a little less mystical in process and product.

Likewise, for the system to grow smarter it is absolutely mandatory that regional centers grow less glib, for clients to have clear understanding of new limitations and for some agencies to close. But the most important factor is that stewardship of this system and its resources for the benefit of the people served has to improve for the remnants to matter. Which is why such proposals as an x% rate cut across the board or the evacuation of regional centers will prove a lack of good thinking by the administration.

Of course, this budget is bad enough that we just have all non-residential care proposed for elimination. In which case, dangit.

Diamonds and dirt are forever.

If you want to level an accusation against regional center vendors generally and be confident you can make it stick, this vendor recommends "They suffer fools far too gladly." Westside Regional is in its, approximately, fourth attempt to convert Independent Living Services (currently service code 520, for those keeping score in your programs) into a standardized supported living-like program funded at a flat rate.

There are many astonishing aspects to this: the durability of demonstrated bad thinking, the ascendency of paperwork over people in the proposal, that the initial public conversation about each attempt always begins with a plan rather than a request for insight, the ivory-tower thinking of a community-based non-academic institution, the failure to account for client rights or the passive acceptance by vendors of a plan contrary to their own interests, hypothetical values and the needs of the people they serve. It's a little hard to pick out the worst aspect of this iteration and probably not worth the effort.

A little history, to be read as though it were in the oral tradition because I don't have time to fact check. Some time, in or around 2001, it was explained to me that Westside had conducted a pilot test of flat-rate ILS but that in the evaluation it was discovered that vendors did, in fact and strangely enough, respond to incentives and underserved their clients. Clearly, flat-rate ILS was an experiment that failed.

Nonetheless, the proposal returned from the grave twice more before now with the added twist of requiring the ILS vendors to become SLS vendors without changing their scope of service, except perhaps, to add 24-hour emergency response to replace the Regional Center's. On the first of these occasions, DDS was made aware by vendors of the proposal and a message was sent through vendors that the proposal did not appeal to the Department and could not be supported under the regulations. The second time, a letter was sent by DDS with the same message. Part of what makes this proposal so mystifying is that it seems to have no consituency beyond the Regional Center bureaucrats. If it were a tolerable cost-reduction scheme, DDS, at least should have liked it.

And here we are again. I was not present at the vendor meeting where the latest draft was announced, but as it was reported to me the Westside vendors offered no resistance. Maybe they see something I'm missing, but based on my reading of the proposal I can only imagine that either the vendors agreeing haven't thought the proposal through or they already know they'll cheat.

The plan calls for a minimum weekly activity with a flat rate covering that effort or more, plus a significant amount of paperwork beyond what is called for in regulations. On an hourly basis, the rate equates to $35.71 per hour, as a long term average, is higher than many ILS agencies receive but less than what others receive. However in long months, that rate will fall to $30 which, while higher than ¡Arriba!'s rate, is lower than most. There is no compensation for the extra paperwork and no allowance made for even small spikes in service, need or planning requirements (A medical appointment, court date or an SSI appeal can not be accomplished in increments of one hour.) If an agency provides even a small number of hours beyond the minimum, the effective rate is likely to fall 30% or more from their state-set rates. Furthermore, by requiring the activity to be weekly, the proposal would prohibit agencies from concentrating sparse hours to reduce the cost of paid travel between clients. This is why I am certain that agreeable vendors must either be fooled or frauds.

There are massive problems afflicting the proposal with regard to the rights of clients. To eliminate vendor code 520, and implement the new reporting requirements, the regional center would need to a) not inform clients of available alternatives, b) cancel services categorically, c) cancel existing services without ID team meetings and due process. All of these steps are necessary to implement this proposal and none of them compliant with existing statute, relevant regulations and/or federal law (in the case of Medicaid waiver clients.)

To summarize, this proposal has a long history of failure, is illegal, hypocritical, unhelpful and impractical.

And yet, there is value in this proposal: It is a perfect example of why innovation fails in this system. While there is no explicit goal for this proposal, beginning the conversation with a purpose and developing, in collaboration with vendors and clients, might have led to a solution with the possibility of a positive outcome. You can almost hear the voices within the regional center saying "we have to make our plan internally and then announce it as a done deal or else the vendors will just put up obstacles." By making that choice, they've left us with no alternative.

It may be worth noting that the Executive Director of this regional center delivered a scathing criticism of vendors for not providing attentive, responsive and individualized support at the New Day conference in 2005. Hopefully, the irony that he is overseeing a persistent effort to standardize the individualized services Westside can offer is amusing to someone.

Administration

I think our system has a funny relationship with administration. On the one hand, it's almost a tenet of faith that administrative costs deprive the clients. On the other, the State and Regional Centers sure seem to come up with a lot of ideas for vendors to do more of it. There are a few things that stand out to me about the role of administration in our system.

The first is this: Our system derives its efficiency and effectiveness from the individualism in the service planning. In theory always and in reality sometimes, services provided are so well matched with the client and his or her situation that there is no waste and yet every disability-related need is met. OK, right, but the point is, the matching of service to need and the flexibility to treat each client individually clearly requires more management that one-size-fits-all solutions. Add to that our emphasis on integration and services being located in the home and in the community and it becomes clear that the quality-assurance and communications functions of administration are more demanding and more productive than in standardized, facility-based models of care.

The second thing that stands out is this: Administration and management interfere with the process by which individuals and their staff find their own way. Quality Assurance, service planning and coordination are all interventions in the organic process of person-centered support. Administration may be necessary or beneficial but it can easily be stultifying, invasive and counter-productive. Like this entire system, cost-benefit analysis should be applied to both administration and the regulations and policies that promote administration to make sure we do the optimum amount of administration the best way possible. I should clarify that by analysis I mean analysis and nothing that begins with "I think" like this post did.

The Problem with Providers

OK. I am a service provider, director of a regional center vendor agency. I confess. The concern regarding any reforms proposed by service providers, whether regional center vendors or regional centers themselves, is that our bright visions of the future tend to be better funded, less restricted versions of the present. The idea is almost always that if we were given the funds and the freedom to do what we now do for the people we now serve the lot of people with disabilities would improve.

This denies the central question about this system- are the people it serves getting the best possible most appropriate support. There's something anti-evolutionary about the premise that agencies need to thrive for people with developmental disabilities to do so. What about people who are poorly served, not only because of staff turnover or poor qualifications but also because the agencies serving them are philosophically unable to keep pace? I know that better wages for direct care staff would expedite the progress of clients. I suspect that the disappearance of some agencies would as well.

One question with no clear answer- could the elimination of underperforming agencies and their overhead free up enough resources to provide for better funding of well-performing agencies and a general improvement of the support people with disabillities receive? It is possible when you consider how many millions of dollars go to agency infrastructure and real estate that the closure of a few large site-based agencies could release significant funding back into the community. Whether or not that helps depends on whether the agencies do, and how much.

The purpose of reform needs to always be to sustain the progress being made by people with developmental disabilities. On the survival of service providers, even the service providers should be agnostic.