California
2002-2006 State Plan
From the document approved by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) on December 3, 2001.
Note: The document listed below is the original text of the 2002-2006 State Plan. Amended Goals and Objectives were approved on October 29, 2003.
Index (Click on the hyperlink to be taken directly to that Section)
About the 2002-2006 State Plan
Incidence of Federally-defined Developmental Disabilities
Environmental Factors Affecting Services in California
Barriers for Unserved/Underserved
Community Services and Opportunities
Areas of Emphasis*
*These Areas and their accompanying Goals and Objectives were amended in 2003. The Amended Areas of Emphasis, Goals and Objectives are currently available online as a Word document. Additional formats will be forthcoming.
The
California State Council on Developmental Disabilities is a federally funded
independent state agency established by federal and state law. Its mandate is
systemic change, capacity building, and systemic advocacy to promote a
consumer and family-based system of services, supports, and other assistance.
The goal of the federal law is to enable people with developmental
disabilities to achieve self-determination, independence, productivity, and
community integration and inclusion.
Though
the Council approved and submitted the 2001-2003 State Plan only last August,
on April 30, 2001, the federal Administration on Developmental Disabilities
directed all Councils to begin a new five-year Plan cycle, including
additional pieces required by the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and
Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (DD Act of 2000). The new Plan will cover the
Council’s activities and resources from October 1, 2001 – September 30,
2006.
The
California State Council on Developmental Disabilities believes that all Goals
and Objectives from the 2001 State Plan remain relevant and has incorporated
them into the 2002-2006 State Plan. In some cases these goals and objectives
have been reclassified or renamed based on a federal shift from six “life
goal areas” to nine “areas of emphasis.” The only completely new goal
and objectives in the 2002-2006 Plan pertain to self-advocacy, as required by
the DD Act of 2000.
At
the time the 2001 State Plan was developed, the Council informed the public
that the plan cycle would shift from three to five years. The objectives in
the 2001 plan were created, after public input, as long-range objectives for
the announced shift to a five-year-cycle. The long-range system-change issues
incorporated in the plan objectives are anticipated to still be the focus of
Council activities and resources through 2006. The Council will continue to
review these goals and objectives annually to make any necessary modifications
in Council priorities.
NOTE: The full impact of the energy crisis and economic downturn is not yet known. As it continues to unfold it may have further impact on individuals with developmental disabilities, such as increased competition for employment. This may, in turn, require modifying the target outcome numbers in future years.
Applying the Gollay and Associate national prevalence
estimate to California’s January 2001 population of 34,818,000, an estimated
626,724 Californians have a developmental disability. [January 2001 population
data from the California Department of Finance Demographics Unit]
The Federal Administration on Developmental
Disabilities asked the State Council to briefly describe a maximum of four
economic, social, political or litigative factors that effect the way services
are delivered for Californians with developmental disabilities and their
families. For the 2001 Plan the Council selected Economic Factors, Criminal
Justice System, Aging of Californians, and Healthcare. The 2002 Plan updated
this information to include emerging factors such as the energy situation.
California is facing an unprecedented energy crisis.
State electricity prices soared from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in
2000, and will likely reach at least $50 billion in 2001. The combined impact
of unexpected energy expenditures and the downturn in projected revenue due to
the sudden slowing of the high-tech industry means California’s 2001-2002
budget is $5.3 billion less than estimated only 4 months earlier. Canceling
one-time expenditures, reducing many planned augmentations, and
across-the-board spending cuts are now necessary.
The energy crisis impact is not just felt in the
State’s budget. A doubling or tripling of utility bills may mean the
difference between living independently or not for consumers on fixed incomes.
It may also mean the loss of community-based programs. Many programs,
dependent on fixed rates lagging behind costs, just barely met expenses before
this crisis. Skyrocketing utility costs alone could cause deficits that
threaten continuation of these services.
Previously reported economic factors continue to be
of concern. Community direct care wages up to 50 percent less than public
employment, coupled with extremely high housing costs, clearly impact the
service system environment. The wage crisis threatens the very ability of
consumers to live in the community if services and supports are not available
because caregivers cannot afford to work in this field.
California’s March 2001 existing single-family home
median price was $262,980, astronomically out of reach for someone whose SSI
or minimal-pay income qualifies for no more than a $40,000 home loan. Lack of
any houses at such prices and SSI regulations prohibiting accumulation of cash
needed for a down payment are huge barriers to ownership.
There is also a severe shortage of affordable rental
housing. Housing authorities are so overwhelmed with rental assistance
applications that new requests are only taken on occasion. Even when accepted,
waiting times range from 2-10 years.
The right to community inclusion must not require
unnecessary risk of harm or abuse. It must include full access, rights and
protections within the justice system for individuals with developmental
disabilities, whether victims, witnesses, accused or convicted, and include
systemic advocates ensuring that those rights are met.
Victims with developmental disabilities are subject
to burdens of proof not placed on other victims. Competency is routinely
questioned, despite Evidence Code Section (ECS) 700 that says, “except as
otherwise provided by statute, every person is qualified to be a witness and
no person is disqualified to testify to any matter.” No statute states that
a person with cognitive impairment is unqualified. ECS 701 states "a
person is disqualified as a witness if he is incapable of expressing himself
so as to be understood (directly or though an interpreter) or is incapable of
understanding the duty to tell the truth." Judges and attorneys, rather
than developmental disability experts, make these determinations. State laws
and programs protect children under 12 who are crime victims from being
further victimized by the process, but such protections and programs are
lacking for those with cognitive limitations whose chronological age is over
12. Families are not told of their procedural rights, and misperceptions that
some with disabilities cannot benefit from victim services means help is not
available.
The State's capacity for housing and treating a
fast-growing population of offenders with developmental disabilities is also
severely strained. Legislation requires placement priority at Porterville
Developmental Center for any consumer charged with a violent felony who is
incompetent to stand trial and judicially ordered into placement at a secure
treatment facility. The Center is now at capacity and working with the courts
to defer admissions based on available bed space. The DDS challenge is to meet
forensic needs without sacrificing needs of other consumers.
The same baby boomer dynamics impacting society
overall also impacts developmental services. Added to the larger population
base is the increasing life expectancy of consumers. From December 1993 to
April 3, 2001, the number of DDS consumers age 62 or older grew by 69.9
percent. Not only are there more individuals to serve, the system must find a
way to provide appropriate services for years or even decades longer.
In 1993, consumers age 42 and older represented 14
percent of the total caseload. By April 3, 2001 this has risen to 17 percent.
A recent DDS analysis of trends over a six-year period (January 1994 –
December 1999) found an increase in consumers who enter the system for the
first time in their mid 30’s. One possible explanation is that aging parents
and guardians may be less able to continue providing the required level of
care and support as their own health declines. For all age groups up through
41, far more consumers live with parents or guardians than anywhere else;
however, beginning at age 42, community care facilities become the most common
living arrangement. Alternatives must be planned for, and it is uncertain if
sufficient community living options and supports will be available to meet
this need. Aging parents are acutely concerned about what will happen to their
adult children when the parents become incapacitated or die.
Consumers in community care facilities also face
obstacles to aging gracefully. For many consumers, medical issues related to
age rather than disability make it difficult to continue in day programs, but
existing staffing patterns and reimbursement rates do not easily accommodate
options that allow consumers to retire and stay home.
This demographic shift requires such age-related
services and supports as: Alzheimer's care; "supported" retirement;
inclusive senior programs; maintaining one's chosen living option following
illness or death of the parents; and even disability-appropriate bereavement
services. California's senior services and supports initiatives must include
both seniors with developmental disabilities and seniors who are primary
caregivers for consumers of all ages.
The energy crisis affects the health of those with
developmental disabilities. Power outages are annoyances or inconveniences for
most people. But for those with disabilities who depend on respirators, home
dialysis machines, or electrical assistive devices, an outage can have
significant, even life-threatening, consequences.
A
community healthcare shortage for those with disabilities exists due to:
inadequate
reimbursements
lack of appropriate
specialists and generalists trained in DD
accessible healthcare
equipment
Many health professionals do not accept MediCal due
to very low reimbursements. The resulting shortage can mean children with
epilepsy or cerebral palsy must wait up to six months for a neurology
appointment. The total lack of therapists means consumers may be seen
infrequently or not at all.
In 1993,
19.7 percent of consumers with medical problems lived in developmental
centers. By April 3, 2001, this decreased to 10.3 percent. Community-based
services now serve consumers with more significant medical challenges, yet a
critical shortage of nurses, therapists, and other health professionals
exists.
Appropriate mental health services for those with
developmental disabilities are also a major concern. A new State law requires
health plans to cover mental health equally with physical health, including
services for those with autism. This will improve future access, but services
are not yet widely available. Also, few mental health professionals have been
trained to work with people with developmental disabilities.
Consumers with severe behavior problems have also
left developmental centers, with the percentage living in DCs dropping from
34.1 percent (1993) to 12.9 percent (2001). This shift has been primarily
borne by parents — rising from 38 percent to 60.9 percent over the same
period. The development of respite and other supports for those who live at
home and secure residential treatment options for individuals who are a danger
to self or others continues to be a major SCDD concern.
The Administration on Developmental Disabilities
asked the Council to summarize its review and analysis of the state service
system for people with developmental disabilities. In 2001, the Council
submitted information based on the Council's System Review. For
the 2002-2006 Plan, two new sections were added – Consumers Served and
Disabilities Served.
Complexity is a hallmark of California Government as
a whole. The 1992 U.S. Census figures reported 4,392 separate governmental
structures within California. This complexity is no less true, and often times
is actually compounded, for the developmental disabilities service system. It
is multidisciplinary, multi-departmental, and multi-governmental (federal,
state, region, county, city) in both form and function.
The California Department of Developmental Services,
through its local service system of 21 private nonprofit regional centers, is
responsible for meeting the needs of California’s consumers, but only as the
payer of last resort. If the Individual Program Plan (IPP) identifies a
necessary service, it is the responsibility of the regional center to provide
it – but only if it cannot be obtained through other means. This has at
least three negative outcomes:
Consumers
and families must go through the laborious process of receiving service denials from other agencies before a regional center will pay for services;
Necessary
services are delayed; and
Regional
centers have no incentive to volunteer service suggestions in the IPP.
The state mandate in the developmental disabilities
service system is to exhaust all other service options before relying on the
developmental services system. Other state and local agencies provide “generic”
services that may or may not be available to individuals with developmental
disabilities. These other agencies do not enjoy entitlement status and
therefore may not be motivated to provide services to our consumers if
regional centers are responsible for filling in the gaps. This disparity in
departmental missions can lead to delays in service, frustration,
inefficiency, and confusion, even among state agencies, as to which agency is
appropriately responsible for which services.
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. This budgetary formula creates
a difficult balance between stewardship of the regional center's annual
appropriation and development of comprehensive assessments of each consumer's
service and support needs.
California is the only state that mandates access to
services and supports for individuals with developmental disabilities and
their families as an entitlement. In that context, it is difficult to identify
and meet all the needs of consumers without imposing waiting lists. The
Council is advocating for development of new funding models based on consumer
needs identified in the IPP. The Council is also advocating for the
establishment of an interagency reimbursement mechanism that would clarify
disputes regarding generic services. These overarching systemic reforms would
allow service utilization review policies of regional centers to be more
proactive in favor of consumers.
Having identified these issues in its developmental
disabilities service system review, the Council is working with various
elements of the system to advance these reforms.
Most Californians reaching adulthood do not
immediately distance themselves from their families. It is illogical to
automatically promote such distancing for individuals with developmental
disabilities in California’s service system.
The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act states that individuals with developmental disabilities and their
families are the primary decision-makers regarding the services and supports
they receive. Through interpretation, California law makes two major
distinctions regarding the role of families:
Families
of consumers under 18 are a legal part of all planning and decisions regarding
the consumer, unless a guardian has been court appointed; and
Families
of consumers 18 and over are considered to have no legal role in plans and
decisions regarding the individual unless:
a) the
family member is the court appointed conservator;
b) the
area board has appointed the family member as “authorized representative;”
or
c) the
individual with developmental disabilities pro-actively insists that their
family member participate in a given meeting and/or decision.
At some regional centers and other State agencies,
family members’ names and addresses are routinely removed from mailing lists
when individuals with developmental disabilities reach age 18. Likewise, in
some system databases, there is no method of noting if an adult is conserved,
unless the Department of Developmental Services is the conservator. It is the
consumer's responsibility to specifically request that the family be included.
Clearly a consumer over the age of 18 has the right to exclude parents from
their decision-making process. However, there should be a default presumption
of family involvement unless consumers indicate otherwise, especially in cases
where the adult consumer is not able to express an opinion.
The system must also provide appropriate tools to
enable parents to act in the best interests, and on behalf of, their minor and
adult children.
Californians with developmental disabilities and
their families have a right to expect, and even demand, quality from the
developmental disabilities service system.
However, many concerns have been raised about quality
issues in the system.
While the term "quality" is utilized
throughout the federal and state laws governing the developmental disabilities
system, there is no standardization or any universal testing model to measure
either individual or system progress. Universally understood indicators of
quality are needed.
Regional centers are mandated to assure an outmoded
notion of quality (i.e. meeting minimal standards) without the protection
afforded other state agencies in the conduct of their work.
Current law requires regional centers to vendorize
all providers who meet basic administrative criteria. These criteria do not
include required experience or any other clear indication of an agency's
ability to provide quality services and supports. Person-Centered Planning
meetings emphasize consumer and family choice, but consumers, families, and
others have little objective information on provider quality.
Rates paid to providers are generally not seen as
adequate to assure quality services and supports. High staff turnover and low
morale can be further impediments to quality services and supports. There are
currently no incentives for providers to be more creative and excel at
providing quality services and supports.
When problems surface there has been a tendency to
impose layers of regulatory process requirements on the service system.
Rarely, however, do these new requirements solve the identified problem.
Contemporary thought on quality asserts that a true commitment to providing
quality services cannot be imposed externally. The service system would
benefit from some of the continuous quality improvement models that have been
successful in other fields.
An analysis of current consumer statistics reveals
some major demographic shifts.
The number of consumers ages 0-21 now represents more
than 50 percent of the entire developmental disabilities service system
caseload.
During the consumer’s schooling years (up to age 22
in the special education system), the majority of the needed services and
supports are provided through the IEP process and paid for by the education
system. The need to plan for a huge increase in consumers who will be aging
out of the education system and turning to the regional centers for all their
service and support needs is critical. The potential impact on the regional
center system and the Purchase of Service (POS) budget cannot be ignored.
The other major shift in the number of consumers
served concerns ethnicity and the need for an increase in culturally
appropriate services. Accounting for only 44 percent of the total, Whites no
longer constitute the majority in the overall statewide caseload. Over 25
percent of the total caseload is Hispanic. Over 20 percent of the total
caseload has a primary language other than English.
The shift in the population is even more apparent
when you look at the statistics for the 0-21 population. According to April 3,
2001, DDS CDER statistics, Hispanics represent 35 percent of the 0-21
caseload, with Whites representing only 34 percent. The number of non-English
speaking families is also higher, with over 28 percent of the total 0-21
caseload indicating a primary language other than English.
Among the Hispanic population the number of
non-English speaking consumers rises to 58 percent. More than 82 percent of
Hispanic consumers live in the family home, increasing the likelihood of
regional center interaction with multiple non-English-speaking family members
and further indicating the need for linguistically and culturally appropriate
staff.
Not only have there been changes in the consumers
served, the types of disabilities served are also experiencing a distinct
shift. While other disabilities have always been served, the majority of
services were designed around the needs of those with mental retardation or
cognitive impairments. In December 1993, consumers without mental
retardation/cognitive impairments comprised only 11.6 percent of the active
DDS caseload. As of April 3, 2001 this had risen to 18.2 percent.
During the same time period, the number of
individuals diagnosed with autism has skyrocketed. In 1993 the Department of
Developmental Services (DDS) served 4,911 individuals with autism. By April 3,
2001 this number had grown to 14,777, a 201 percent increase, with 700 new
cases diagnosed in the first quarter of 2001 alone. This rise in numbers far
outpaces the overall growth in the consumer population. In December 1993 less
than 5 percent of the caseload consisted of consumers with autism, yet by
April 3, 2001 the percentage of the total has risen to more than 10 percent.
The necessity to adapt the service system to the
particular needs of an increasingly diverse population is apparent. It is
difficult, and in some areas impossible, to find enough providers to meet the
demand for health, mental health, respite, and other services for children
with autism whose behavioral challenges may include flight-risk, self-injury,
or other behaviors that require up to one-on-one supervision. The lack of
trained providers able to handle these challenges results in consumers and
families being denied services – not for lack of eligibility, funding, or
willingness – but purely from lack of available human resources. Without
these needed services, particularly for children with behavioral challenges,
the risk of out-of-home placement and disrupted families increases.
The Federal Government asked Councils to briefly identify any specific barriers to services for specific populations.
Many issues listed in the Plan are made more
difficult if there are additional barriers such as rural isolation or
socio-economic inaccessibility. SCDD’s
Federal partner, PAI, voiced this same concern. 2001 Plan consumer testimony
expressed difficulty in accessing services if workers do not speak Spanish. A
2002 Plan consumer comment indicated this barrier is true for any language –
English-speaking consumers cannot make their needs known if direct care staff
on duty do not speak English.
The federal government
asked the
State Council for a summary of the extent to which community services and
opportunities related to the areas of emphasis directly benefit individuals
with developmental disabilities. This summary includes information on
assistive technology/services and rehabilitation technology, current resources
and projected availability of future resources to fund services; as well as
health care and other supports and services received in ICF(MRs) and through
the Home and Community Based Waivers.
California is making
concerted efforts to improve assistive technology (AT) availability for
consumers. The current major needs appear to be:
1) educating consumers and families that AT is available; 2) assisting in
determining what will work best for each individual; and 3) providing proper
training in the usage, care, and maintenance of equipment. Parents also report
staff reluctance to provide AT to those with cognitive impairments. Because
consumer knowledge of assistive technology is not widespread, it is difficult
to determine the exact need for such products. This, in turn, makes it
difficult to determine what resources would be required to meet the need. SCDD
will collaborate with the various involved entities to increase consumer
awareness. Increased awareness of AT and what it can do is an important method
for achieving several Council goals and objectives.
As noted previously, there
is a critical shortage of nurses and other health
professionals. The availability
of Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) waivers becomes a moot point if
the human resources necessary to fill needed positions do not exist. Any
discussion of moving individuals into the community through expansion of HCBS
waivers or other community-based services must include not only the funding,
but how to actually staff positions that are funded. A comprehensive effort to
systematically improve the community services infrastructure must be
undertaken – not only for individuals waiting to move to the community –
but for those already in the community who have yet to receive needed and
approved services due to lack of healthcare professional resources. Without
this infrastructure, it is impossible to achieve full community inclusion.
The energy situation
continues to evolve, with the final outcome not to be known for some time.
This will have an increasing impact on resources available for all other State
funded services and programs, including developmental disabilities services
and supports.
The Administration on Developmental Disabilities asked Councils to identify all Waiting Lists that exist in each State.
Department of
Rehabilitation – 2,322 individuals (as of July 30, 2001)
Note: SCDD was unable to
obtain other statewide waiting list information as services are provided and
separate lists maintained throughout the state by numerous and varied
regional, county, or other local entities. The lack of statewide data is of
concern as it serves as a barrier to an accurate assessment of the statewide
service system.
California is the only
State in the nation with an entitlement to services for
individuals with developmental disabilities. However, while California’s
entitlement is open-ended, there is a fixed annual appropriation. For more on
this topic, please see the California Service System Section.
An entitlement to
developmental disability services, however, does
not preclude the existence of waiting lists for generic services and supports,
such as those indicated on the list above. The most notable examples are the
subsidized housing programs. California's subsidized housing programs
are overwhelmed with requests for assistance. As a result, there are only
certain windows of opportunity when new applications are taken. Even those who
do get on the list for subsidized rental housing currently face waiting lists
of at least 2 years. In some high cost urban areas, it is not unheard of to
take up to 10 years to move to the top of the list. While on the waiting list
there are policies and procedures that must be followed in order to retain
eligibility. Something as simple as failing to respond to a mailed inquiry can
cause the time clock to begin again as the individual moves back to the bottom
of the list or loses eligibility completely.
The shortage of healthcare providers willing to
accept MediCal patients further limits the availability of medical and dental
services. Although patients may not be on official “waiting lists,” the
shortage of doctors who accept MediCal means that some children with cerebral
palsy or epilepsy must wait up to six months for a neurology appointment. The
healthcare shortage is not limited to doctors. In addition to the official
waiting lists that exist; speech, physical and occupational therapy clients
may not show up on waiting lists because they are being seen. In reality,
however, they may only receive a fraction of the therapy sessions they could
benefit from due to the lack of therapists compared to the caseloads. This
unofficial type of waiting list will likely get worse because not enough
students are choosing therapy fields as professions.
Californians
with developmental disabilities obtain, maintain, and advance in employment
consistent with their interests, abilities, and needs.
|
EM1.1 |
2,000
California students will transition to paid employment by the year 2006
as a result of improved interagency collaboration. |
|
EM1.2 |
Council
projects will enable 1,000 Californians with developmental disabilities
to obtain, maintain, and/or advance in jobs of their choice by the year
2006. |
|
EM1.3 |
By
the year 2006, 10,000 Californians with developmental disabilities will
have improved access to appropriate training and assistive technology
enabling employment of their choice, including self-employment and
home-based businesses. |
·
13,000 Adults have
jobs of their choice through Council efforts
·
$1,250,000 Dollars
leveraged for employment programs
·
500
Businesses/Employers who employ adults with developmental disabilities
·
University Centers
for Excellence
·
Department of
Developmental Services, Association of Regional Center Agencies (ARCA) and
Regional Centers
·
Department of
Education and Special Education Local Planning Areas (SELPAS)
·
Department of
Rehabilitation and its assistive technology programs
·
Employment
Development Department, Governor's Council on Employment of Persons with
Disabilities and local employment councils
·
Local Community
Colleges
·
State Independent
Living Council and local Independent Living Centers
·
Employment Provider
Organizations, including the California Association of Rehabilitation
Industries (CARI) and California Association of Professionals in Supported
Employment (CalAPSE)
· Area Boards on Developmental Disabilities are only considered external collaborators if these entities are no longer Council-funded
Californians
with developmental disabilities and their families have control, choice and
flexibility in selecting from among a full array of living options, and are
respected as the primary decision-makers regarding where and with whom they
live.
|
HO1.1 |
By
the year 2006, 3,500 Californians with developmental disabilities will
have information regarding, and access to, affordable rental and
ownership housing. |
|
HO1.2 |
By
the year 2006, 6,500 Californians with developmental disabilities will
obtain and maintain their preferred living option throughout their
lifespan, including access to necessary services and supports. |
·
6,500 individuals
will have homes of their choice through Council efforts
·
$2,500,000 dollars
will be leveraged for housing
·
125 units of
affordable, accessible housing will be made available
·
12,000 people will be
trained in systems advocacy about housing
·
University Centers
for Excellence (UAPs) at UCLA and USC
·
Department of
Developmental Services, including Regional Center Housing Coordinators,
Association of Regional Center Agencies and Regional Centers
·
California Housing
Development Agency and Department of Housing and Community Development
·
State Independent
Living Council and local Independent Living Centers
·
State licensing
entities
·
Area Agencies on
Aging
·
California Coalition
for Affordable Housing and local housing coalitions
·
State and federal
loan programs
·
Parents and families
·
Building Industry
Association of California
· Area Boards on Developmental Disabilities are only considered external collaborators if these entities are no longer Council-funded
Californians
with developmental disabilities of all ages and abilities will have access to,
and benefit from, a full range of coordinated health, dental and mental health
services in their communities.
HE1.1 |
By
the year 2006, 8,000 Californians with developmental disabilities will
have access to appropriately trained medical, mental health, dental and
other interdisciplinary health professionals, including nurses,
specialty resources and experts. |
|
HE1.2 |
By
the year 2006, 1,800 Californians with developmental disabilities and
significant psychiatric needs or behavioral challenges will have access
to a full range of mental health services, including appropriate
residential treatment options. |
|
HE1.3 |
By
the year 2006, 1000 infants and toddlers and their families will have
access to early and appropriate diagnosis, services and supports to
maximize developmental potential and strengthen families. |
|
HE1.4 |
By
the year 2006, 1000 families will have access to mental health
counseling and other preventive supports to maximize the ability of the
family to provide for their family member’s special needs. |
·
8000 people will have
needed health services through Council efforts
·
$2,500,000 dollars
will be leveraged for health services
·
30 health care
programs/policies will be improved
·
5000 people will be
trained in health care services
·
University Centers
for Excellence (UCEs) at UCLA and USC
·
Department of
Developmental Services, Association of Regional Center Agencies, Regional
Centers
·
Department of Health
Services, and in particular California Children's Services (CCS)
·
Department of Mental
Health, Mental Health Directors Association and local mental health agencies
·
The Interagency
Coordinating Council and Family Resource Center Network
·
State Independent
Living Council and local Independent Living Centers
·
Infant Development
Association of California
·
Professional
organizations, including the California Medical Association and local medical
associations, California Psychiatric Association, California State
Psychological Association, and Society for Clinical Social Work
· Area Boards on Developmental Disabilities are only considered external collaborators if these entities are no longer Council-funded
Californians
with developmental disabilities and their families are free to participate
fully in their communities, and have the necessary community supports to
enable such participation.
CS1.1
|
By
the year 2006, 12,000 Californians with developmental disabilities will
have access to enhanced transportation services in their communities. |
|
CS1.2 |
By
the year 2006, 2,300 California students with developmental disabilities
will have access to innovative after-school care that includes life and
work skills development and social/recreational opportunities throughout
the student’s educational years. |
|
CS1.3 |
By
the year 2006, 350 California seniors with developmental disabilities
will have access to community programs serving seniors. |
|
CS1.4 |
The
State Council will expand development of community services and supports
through Community Program Development Grants by advocating for full
state funding of Area Boards on Developmental Disabilities. |
·
10,000 people have
transportation services that meet their needs
·
$500,000 dollars
leveraged for transportation programs
·
21 Transportation
programs or policies created or improved
·
10,000 people trained
in transportation
·
500 children in
inclusive child care settings through Council efforts
·
$250,000 dollars
leveraged for child care programs
·
58 child care
programs or policies created or improved
·
500 people trained in
child care
·
500 people active in
recreational activities through Council efforts
·
$250,000 dollars
leveraged for recreation programs
·
58 recreation
programs or policies created or improved
·
500 people trained in
recreation
·
1600 individuals
receive formal/informal community supports
·
$6,000,000 dollars
leveraged for formal/informal community supports
·
100 buildings/public
accommodations became accessible
·
500 children, youth,
and young adults will be served in afterschool/latchkey programs
·
University Centers
for Excellence
·
Department of
Developmental Services and Regional Centers, including Regional Center
Transportation Coordinators and vendors
·
California Department
of Aging and the local Area Agencies on Aging
·
California Department
of Transportation and local transportation jurisdictions
·
Department of
Education and local education agencies
·
Department of
Rehabilitation
·
Department of Social
Services
·
State Independent
Living Council and local Independent Living Centers
·
California
Association of Professionals in Supported Employment (CAL-APSE)
·
State and local
childcare entities and nonprofit organizations for youth
·
Ticket-to-Work
vendors
·
Local governments
·