PAI stops service reductions

• Counties pay for 24-hour care and supervision;

• Regional centers pay for services included in the children's IPPs, but not allowable under foster care program rules;

• Children who live in unlicensed foster homes with a relative are eligible for respite; and

• Counties and regional centers must work together to make sure that dual agency children get the services they need.

Bobby is a 14-year-old boy with autism who hit himself and banged his head. A doctor at UCLA's Neuropsychiatric Hospital told PAI that Bobby should not be in a group home that did not cooperate with treatment recommendations. The doctor was concerned that Bobby would end up in a developmental center if the regional center did not give him appropriate services. With help from PAI staff, Bobby moved to a small group home with two other children. There, two aides work with him 24 hours a day. Bobby now wears a bandanna instead of a helmet and is doing very well.

PAI heard complaints from many consumers who wanted to move from one part of California to another, but found that regional center transfer policies were neither clear nor consistent. Recent changes to the Lanterman Act require that DDS develop guidelines for transfers between regional centers.

In commenting on DDS's proposed guidelines, PAI described the problems consumers met in trying to transfer, and recommended specific steps in pre-transfer planning. These steps would make sure that consumers who must have services in place before they move would have them. PAI pointed out that people with developmental disabilities have the same constitutional right to move as other Californians. Delays, gaps in services, or regional center refusal to provide the services they need violate that right. DDS reissued proposed guidelines that incorporated PAI's suggestions.

Claims for regional center eligibility under the Lanterman Act's "fifth category" can be a problem. The fifth category allows eligibility for a person who has "a condition closely related to mental retardation or treatment needs similar to that of a mentally retarded person." To fulfill the Lanterman Act's purpose, regional centers should interpret the fifth category broadly.

Kenneth is a 15-year-old who lives at a residential school. He applied for regional center services under the fifth category. Four psychological evaluations placed Kenneth in the range of mild mental retardation. The regional center evaluation, however, reported a full scale IQ of 81. They denied eligibility; there was no appeal. Later, a court ordered Kenneth's public guardian and the Department of Children's Services to look into regional center eligibility. In helping the public guardian, PAI reviewed Kenneth's regional center file and got another assessment. Kenneth reapplied and the regional center found him eligible for services.

Raymond and LaTanya, who are brother and sister, have mild mental retardation and had regional center services. In 1997, their mother asked the regional center for psychological evaluations so the children could get services from their local school district. With the new evaluations, the regional center said that the children had learning disabilities-not developmental disabilities that would qualify for regional center services.

PAI had a neuropsychologist evaluate each child. If the regional center wanted to cut off services, said PAI staff, it would have to prove that the original decision was "clearly erroneous." After reviewing the independent evaluations, the regional center decided that both Raymond and LaTanya were eligible under the fifth category.

Ryan is 20 years old and much bigger than his mother, who is his primary care giver. Because she has trouble transferring Ryan from his wheelchair to her car, she asked the regional center to buy and adapt a van. PAI staff helped her prepare for a fair hearing. They suggested that she include in her argument: (1) Ryan's individual transportation needs, (2) why other options are not appropriate, and (3) relevant sections of the Lanterman Act.

The judge ordered the regional center to buy a van and modify it to accommodate Ryan's disabilities. The regional center agreed to pay $19,000 for a new van, plus $15,000 for a lift and other adaptations.

A medically fragile baby named Andrew goes to a special day care center 45 hours a week. His parents are both full-time teachers. Andrew needs specialized services and nursing care. His regional center's policy limits day care to 20 hours a week unless a family can show "extraordinary need." No one explained the "exceptions policy" to Andrew's family.

At a fair hearing, PAI argued that the day care policy violates the individualized planning process under the Lanterman Act, and the exceptions policy does not cure it. The hearing officer: (1) ordered the regional center to reinstate Andrew's hours; and (2) ruled that the day care policy is illegal as applied in Andrew's case.