|
In order to qualify for those services brokered by
California’s 21 Regional Centers a person must have a Developmental
disability. A Developmental
disability is a disability that is attributable to mental retardation,
cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, or disabling conditions found to be closely
related to mental retardation or to require treatment similar to that
required for individuals with mental retardation. The Developmental Disability must originate before age
eighteen, Be likely to continue indefinitely, and constitute a substantial
disability. The disability cannot be
Solely a psychiatric disorder, solely a learning disability, or Solely
physical in nature. A “substantial disability”
is a condition which results in major impairment of cognitive and/or social
functioning, representing sufficient impairment to require interdisciplinary
planning and coordination of special or generic services to assist the
individual in achieving maximum potential and creates significant functional
limitations, as determined by the regional center, in three or more of the
following areas of major life activity, as appropriate to the person's age;
Receptive and expressive language, learning, self-care, mobility, self-direction,
capacity for independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. The definition of developmental disability has changed over the years, and some Regional Centers have developed and used internal guidelines that were contrary to eligibility standards found in the Lanterman Developmental Services Act. The Timeline below outlines some of the changes that have occurred in
the definition of developmental disability since 2001. What is remarkable in this timeline are
the numerous occasions in which a regional center, in regards to eligibility,
has deviated from the mandates of Lanterman.
What is MOST remarkable is the invidious classification that happened
via the budget act of 2003 |
|
February 22, 2001 |
Assembly-member Campbell introduces
AB
688 AB
688 required the Department of Developmental Services, in conjunction
with the Association of Regional Center Agencies and other stakeholders, to
develop and implement, by January 1, 2003, a uniform based evaluation
protocols and guidelines to determine eligibility for regional center
services. The bill required the
department to publish and make the proposed protocols available to
the public and the Legislature. AB
688 requires the department, no later than July 1, 2002, to
implement a training program for regional center staff regarding the
protocols. AB 688 does not pass The
Inland Regional Center opposed AB 688. The Regional Center opposed provisions of the bill
that required functionally based evaluations that they claimed would increase
costs. However, the Lanterman Act
uses functionally based evaluations through the “5th category”
eligibility standards and considered the degree of individual impairment
through the need for a “substantial disability” regardless of diagnosis. According to ARCA, most other states use a
functionally based assessment, based on degree of the individual impairment. |
|
|||||||||||||
|
Pre-March
16, 2001 |
The Association
of Regional Center Agencies (ARCA) forms an Eligibility Task Force “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.” [1][1] |
||||||||||||||
|
August
10, 2001 |
AB 430 is Chaptered AB 430 requires the department to develop
evaluation and diagnostic procedures for the diagnosis of autism disorder and
all other autistic spectrum disorders that may be utilized by clinical staff
at regional centers and to develop a corresponding training program for the
staff to be implemented on or before July 1, 2002. The bill also requires the department to provide for the publication of the procedures. |
||||||||||||||
|
March
16, 2002 |
ASSOCIATION OF
REGIONAL CENTER AGENCIES GUIDELINES FOR
DETERMINING “5th CATEGORY” ELIGIBILITY FOR THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL
CENTERS “Regional Centers
should use the criteria of three or more limitations in the seven major life
activities as used in the federal definition for Developmental Disability.” Approved by
the ARCA Board of Directors on March 16, 2002. PROPOSED STATEWIDE DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL
DISABILITY/HANDICAP FOR THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL CENTERS OCTOBER 2000 “It is
recommended that 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” (Attachment 1).” Approved by the
ARCA Board of Directors on March 16, 2002. |
||||||||||||||
|
March
22, 2002 |
The Association
of Regional Center Agencies forwards the work of the ARCA
Eligibility Task Force to the Department of Developmental Services which
includes: 1. Proposed
Guidelines for Determining 5th Category Eligibility; 2. Proposed
Eligibility Criteria for Children Birth to Five years of Age; and 3. Proposed
Statewide Definition of Substantial Disability/Handicap. |
||||||||||||||
|
May
10, 2002 |
It is Discovered
that both Golden Gate Regional Center and Inland Regional Center, Service
Agency are using eligibility guidelines that are contrary to the Lanterman
Act. |
||||||||||||||
|
2002 |
DDS publishes:
Best Practice Guidelines for Screening, Diagnosis and Assessment |
||||||||||||||
|
July
11, 2002 |
A Petition is filed
with the Department of Developmental Services under California Government
Code section 11340.6 to amend Title 17, chapter 3, sub-chapter 1, article 1, section 54000(a) of the California
Code of Regulations in response to the internal intake guidelines of Golden
Gate Regional Center and Inland Regional Center |
||||||||||||||
|
|
The Department agrees
that Title 17, Section 54000(a) should be amended to be made consistent with
the definition of “Developmental Disabled” as found in Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 4512(a).
The Department initiates a rulemaking
to accomplish this amendment. |
||||||||||||||
|
January,
3 2003 |
Governor’s proposed budget Aligning State and Federal Eligibility Definitions—A $2.1
million General Fund reduction by redefining the State’s definition of “substantial
disability,” which is used to determine whether individuals are eligible for
service. The redefinition will further align the State and federal
definitions, requiring limitations in three of the seven major life
activity domains in order to establish eligibility. The revised
definition would be applied prospectively so that those currently receiving
services would not be affected. |
||||||||||||||
|
January,
10 2003 |
ARCA POSITIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNOR’S PROPOSED 2003-2004
FISCAL YEAR BUDGET (SUBMITTED TO THE legislature January 10, 2003) “Withhold recommendation regarding application of the federal
standards for substantial disability relating to regional center eligibility
termination until further review of this proposal” Approved
by the ARCA Board of Directors 1/25/03. * NOTE – ARCA formed the task force (above) that developed the guidelines that directed
Regional Centers to use the federal standards when determining “substantial
disability” |
||||||||||||||
|
January
29, 2003 |
ARCA is informed that its proposed guidelines, if followed,
would be a violation of California law. “As a matter of law, guidelines for the regional centers
regarding service eligibility and “substantial disability” come from
California law alone. The Regional Centers have no authority to develop
internal policies based outside of California law.” |
||||||||||||||
|
February
19, 2003 |
Bill Bowman,
Executive director of the Regional Center of Orange County, states that the
ARCA “guidelines” are, “not
intended to be nor has it been understood to be a policy decision to be
implemented by all Regional Centers.” Mr. Bowman also claims that the
GUIDELINES FOR
DETERMINING “5th CATEGORY” ELIGIBILITY FOR THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL
CENTERS, “was
accepted by the Board of Directors, it was not approved.” |
||||||||||||||
|
February
20, 2003 |
GUIDELINES FOR
DETERMINING “5th CATEGORY” ELIGIBILITY FOR THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL
CENTERS determined to be both “accepted” AND “approved” by ARCA |
||||||||||||||
|
May
21, 2003 |
Regional Center of the East bay decides that
Corrine does not meet the criteria for regional center eligibility. Regional
Center of the East bay utilizes the Association of Regional Center Agencies
(ARCA) guidelines for determining substantial disability/ handicap, which
require that a person be substantially limited in three or more of the
following seven major life activities: communication, learning, self-care,
mobility, self-direction, capacity for independent living and economic
self-sufficiency. The decision is appealed and set for Administrative
Hearing. |
||||||||||||||
|
August,
11 2003 |
CHAPTER 230 Chaptered August 11, 2003 4512(l) ‘‘Substantial disability’’ means the existence
of significant functional limitations in three or more of the following areas
of major life activity, as determined by a regional center, and as
appropriate to the age of the person: (1) Self-care. (2) Receptive and expressive language. (3) Learning. (4) Mobility. (5) Self-direction. (6) Capacity for independent living. (7) Economic self-sufficiency. Any reassessment of substantial disability for purposes of
continuing eligibility shall utilize the same criteria under which the
individual was originally made eligible. |
||||||||||||||
|
August,
13 2003 |
Administrative
Law Judge Nancy L. Rasmussen, Office of Administrative Hearings, hears CORINNE M. Claimant,
vs. REGIONAL CENTER OF THE EAST BAY, Service Agency. OAH No. N 2003060581 |
||||||||||||||
|
August 18, 2003 |
DDS Program
Advisory CFSB 03-1 Modified definition of substantial
disability/handicap |
||||||||||||||
|
Some time before Sept
17, 2003 |
Administrative
Law Judge Nancy L. Rasmussen, Office of Administrative Hearings, renders a
decision in CORINNE
M. Claimant, vs. REGIONAL CENTER OF THE EAST BAY, Service Agency. OAH No. N
2003060581 LEGAL CONCLUSIONS 6. … claimant must have a major impairment of cognitive and/or social
functioning.[2][2] In determining whether claimant has such an
impairment, the regional center must consider the seven areas set forth in
subdivision (b) of Title 17, California Code of Regulations section 54001.
(Its consideration is not limited to these seven areas, however.) Most importantly, nowhere in
the pre-August 11, 2003 law is there a requirement that a regional center
applicant be substantially impaired in a certain minimum number of the seven
areas. The “three or more” requirement in the ARCA guidelines is in line with
the new legislation, but it lacked a basis in California law before August
11, 2003. Claimant is not subject to the “three or more” limitation in the
ARCA guidelines.” (highlight added) Administrative Law Judge
Nancy L. Rasmussen, Office of Administrative Hearings, State of California,
heard this matter on August 13, 2003, in Oakland, California. |
||||||||||||||
|
Sept. 25, 2003 |
The California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approves emergency
regulations enabled by Sections 4512
and 4640, Welfare and Institutions Code. |
||||||||||||||
|
October 17, 2003 |
|||||||||||||||
|
October 20, 2003 |
“Like many regional centers, VMRC has for years applied the requirement
for functional limitations in three or more of the seven "areas of major
life activity" when determining eligibility for older adolescents and
adults. However, we only required two or more for children up to age 16.” Richard
Jacobs, Executive Director Valley Mountain Regional Center (VMRC) |
||||||||||||||
|
October 28, 2003 |
Tri-Counties Regional Center (TCRC), by applying the new
definition of ‘substantial disability’ retroactively argues that
Brett does NOT have a substantial disability. |
||||||||||||||
|
January 23, 2004 |
Emergency regulations for
“substantial disability” refilled; operative 1-24-2004 (Register 2004, No. 4).
A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL by 5-24-2004 or
emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following day. |
||||||||||||||
|
February 18, 2004 |
Analysis of the 2004-05 Budget Bill Change
in Eligibility. The 2003-04 budget as enacted contains a proposal
to achieve savings of $2.1 million General Fund by more closely
conforming the state's definition of what constitutes a substantial
disability to a comparable standard established under federal law. The state's prior definition
granted more latitude in determining whether a person was developmentally
disabled. The DDS has estimated that about 400 persons per
year would not be eligible for services under the new definition. These would
generally be higher functioning individuals with mild mental retardation, or
another disability and without severe medical or behavioral needs. While the immediate fiscal
impact of the change in definition is relatively small, the cumulative effect
may be substantial over the next ten years. The Governor's 2004-05 budget
plan assumes continued savings from this action. |
||||||||||||||
|
March 25, 2004 |
The appeal of Brett C. for
eligibility under the Lanterman Act is granted Administrative Law Judge Joseph D. Montoya find that: “Claimant’s objection to
applying the 2003 amendments is well taken, and the version of section 54001
that existed prior to September 2003 must control in this case. Further, the amendment to section 4512 can
not control either. It is
well-settled that statutes are not to be given a retroactive operation unless
it is clearly made to appear that the legislature intended a retroactive
application. (E.g., Aetna Cas. and Surety
Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1947) 30 Cal. 2d 388, 393; Mir v. Charter Suburban Hosp. (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th
1471, 1478.) This principle was
recognized by the Supreme Court well over 100 years ago in Pignaz v. Burnett, (1897) 119 Cal.
157, 160, where the Court pointed out that retroactive statutes had been
“universally reprobated” by legal writers, and that the law presumed against
retroactive application. The rule has
regularly been applied to statutory amendments, and not just new legislative
schemes. (E.g., Hibernia S. and L. Soc. V. Hayes (1880) 56 Cal. 297; General Ins. Co. v. Commerce Hyatt House
(1970) 5 Cal. App. 3rd 460, 471.)” |
||||||||||||||
|
Unknown |
Kathleen Berry of FEAT in
cooperation with several smart moms, dads, and profession puts together an overview
and update addressing changes in eligibility: “Three areas of
substantial functional limitations in major life activities are required as
of August 9, 2003, whereas only one or two areas were required previously.
[my emphasis] See October 20, 2004 above |
||||||||||||||
|
January 10,
2007 |
In the 2006-2007 fiscal year the
Department of Developmental services is employing multiple means to reduce
regional centers' expenditures, including the following: Reduced intake population growth by prospectively
applying a revised definition of "substantial disability" to
Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act eligibility criteria,
requiring a person to have deficits in at least three of the following seven
life domains as described in California Code of Regulations, Title 17,
Section 54001 “Effective 7/1/03, this was a permanent
measure estimated to result in a cumulative annual population reduction of
405 consumers.” [bold added] LOCAL ASSISTANCE FOR
REGIONAL CENTERS DEPARTMENT
OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES January 10, 2007 |
||||||||||||||
|
June 06, 2007 |
Bill Bowman from the Regional Center of
Orange County and the North Bay Regional Center are informed that
the definition of “developmental
disability” as defined on their respective web sites is in conflict with the
definition found in Title 17 §54000(a) and the Lanterman Act §4512(a). |
|
|||||||||||||
|
June 26, 2007 |
The North Bay Regional Center
makes corrections to the definition of “developmental disability” as defined
on its web site. The definition of “developmental
disability” as found on the web site of the Regional Center of
Orange County remains unchanged and in conflict with the Lanterman Act the Lanterman Act §4512(a) and Title 17 §54000(a) |
|
[1][1] Viewpoint; fall 2003, vol.
10 num. 3 - “Meet the People
Behind the Titles”
[2][2] Cal.
Code Regs., tit., 17, §54001, subd. (a).