What happened?

The state changed eligibility conditions for Regional Center services

An individual is eligible for services from a Regional Center if he or she has a "developmental disability". A developmental disability is a disability that originates before the individual attains age 18 years. The disability must continue, or be expected to continue, indefinitely, and it must constitute a substantial disability for that individual.

In 2003, the state imposed several “cost-containment” measures. Budget trailer bill language changed the definition of “substantial disability”. This change made it more difficult for an individual to be found to have a developmental disability and therefore more difficult to qualify for regional centers services. This change was implemented prospectively. That is, the new eligibility standards apply to NEW consumers ONLY. Those consumers that were found to be eligible for services prior to August 11, 2003 will continue receiving regional centers services even if those individuals do not have a “developmental disability” under the new standard. This is known as a grandfather clause.

What is the big deal?

“Equal protection under the law” is one of our greatest values. It is intended to keep governmental decision makers from treating persons differently who are in all relevant respects alike. The right of every person to equal protection under the law and equal access to society’s opportunities and public facilities is called a Civil Right.

Not long ago, In some parts of this country, black citizens were required to pass a “literacy test” to be eligible to vote. Most could not pass, including whites. In fact, it is likely that most readers of today would not have been able to pass this test. This was not an unintentional reality. However, a “grandfather” clause protected those who had ancestors that were entitled to vote prior to 1866. This literal grandfather clause successfully disenfranchised black citizens for many years. However, we, as a society that values civil rights, found this classification unreasonable, arbitrary, and with no fair and substantial purpose. Literacy tests DID NOT treat all persons similarly circumstanced alike. They were found to be unconstitutional.

A little over 20 years ago the city of Cleburne, TX required a special use permit for a group home. A review by the Supreme court reveal NO rational basis for believing that people with disabilities, residing in a group home, would pose any special threat to the city's legitimate interests, the ordinance was invalided because it failed to treat all persons similarly situated alike.

In 2003 Texas, like California, found themselves in dire circumstances and also imposed “cost-containment” measures. Texas thought that it would be prudent to “[c]ease enrollment of new clients who reside in an eligible metropolitan area.” In other words, if you lived in a large city like Los Angeles or San Francisco a ‘cap’ was placed on enrollment. If you lived outside of a “metropolitan area” no cap was to be implemented. No doubt, cutting off high-density area would go a long way to reducing cost and caseload. However, Texas, reflecting on the lessons of Cleburne, determined that the state could not deny equal provision of services to individuals based on an arbitrary factor of residence that bears no relationship to need.

The arbitrary date of August 11, 2003 denies the equal provision of services to people who are in all relevant respects alike. The state justifies this change as a device needed to preserve the fiscal integrity of California’s developmental services. However, the “grandfather clause” bears no relationship to this need, or any other need. Changes in eligibility are estimated to save California a mere 10 million dollars this year. This is less than 1/10 of the new money that was infused into services provided to those via the grandfather clause. The eligibility changes treat persons differently who are in all relevant respects alike.

How did this happen?

It can be difficult if not impossible to find the genesis of any idea or policy decision. That fact holds true in this case. The first indication of changes came from the Association of Regional Center Agencies (ARCA). Early 2001, over two years before the eligibility changes were effectuated, ARCA formed an Eligibility Task Force to develop documents relating to Autistic Spectrum Disorder Best Practice Guidelines and clarification regarding Fifth Category Eligibility. “The purpose of the task force was to generate standardized guidelines for eligibility determination among all regional centers, and to develop Best Practice Guidelines in relation to Autism Spectrum Disorder.” The task force developed guidelines for determining eligibility for the California regional centers. As part of that process ARCA proposed a statewide definition of Substantial disability for California Regional Centers. ARCA recommended that the, “Regional Centers also use the criteria of three or more limitations in the seven major life activities as used in the federal definition of “Developmental Disability.” This action was

Approved by the ARCA Board of Directors on March 16, 2002. At the time these recommendation were in conflict with the eligibility standards outlined in the Lanterman Act. That is, the guidelines were contrary to public policy.

Some Regional Centers began to use ARCA’s “recommended” standards to deny eligibility to consumers who were eligible under the Lanterman Act. Sometime before May 2003 the REGIONAL CENTER OF THE EAST BAY denied services to a consumer because she did not have a “substantial disability” as defined by ARCA. However, this consumer did have a substantial disability

A) Why is this more important than other issues

There is nothing easier than balancing the budget on the backs of those with no voice. Those affected have little voice because these individuals have developmental disabilities, and NO voice because those affected by the eligibility change are tomorrow’s consumers. Tomorrow’s consumers cannot speak in their defense today. Once we allow the civil rights of a small slice of consumers to be violated without protest, and allow that violation to continue, it becomes easier, year after year, to simply forget that these people exist.

These facts alone require that such acts receive a higher level of scrutiny, strong response and the aegis of the entire disability community. Equality is not, cannot be, just an abstract justice. Nothing opens the door to arbitrary and unfair action so effectively as to allow the state legislature to pick and choose the few to whom they will apply legislation and thus escape the political consequences that might be visited upon them if the legislation was applied equitably and larger numbers were affected. A person either has a developmental disability or not. That fact is not based on race, gender, religion, nation of origin, WHERE they live, or WHEN they were born!