IHSS threatened (In Home Support Services for 81,000 people!)

IHSS threatened – take action

[forwarded from SCHAP- "Stop Criminalizing Homeless and Poor"; One comment regarding this letter is included in the bottom of this post. Please feel free to add your comments, as with every post on this site.]

originally from Laura Rifkin:
PLEASE REMEMBER – This is based on the Governors Proposal; the negotiators are keeping silent.

February 6, 2009

THE GOVERNOR’S PROPOSED BUDGET WOULD ELIMINATE IHSS DOMESTIC SERVICES FOR 81,000 LOW-INCOME SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

The In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program provides services to low-income seniors and people with disabilities who live in their own
homes to help prevent more costly out-of-home care. Governor Schwarzenegger proposes to eliminate domestic and related services for IHSS recipients who have less severe impairments effective May 1, 2009.

This change would reduce IHSS Program funding by $257.6 million between May 2009 and June 2010 and affect 81,000 vulnerable Californians.

Estimated Impact of Governor’s Proposal To Eliminate Domestic Services for Recipients With Less Severe Impairments in the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)

Program County – Number of Recipients – Affected Loss of Funds

Alameda 3,320 $13,678,000
Alpine 3 $10,000
Amador 30 $87,000
Butte 630 $2,176,000
Calaveras 50 $182,000
Colusa 30 $55,000
Contra Costa 1,450 $5,495,000
Del Norte 60 $235,000
El Dorado 150 $555,000
Fresno 2,250 $8,359,000
Glenn 70 $243,000
Humboldt 320 $899,000
Imperial 990 $2,288,000
Inyo 20 $53,000
Kern 880 $2,575,000
Kings 320 $882,000
Lake 290 $1,180,000
Lassen 50 $145,000
Los Angeles 34,290 $96,747,000
Madera 300 $776,000
Marin 300 $1,281,000
Mariposa 40 $106,000
Mendocino 260 $868,000
Merced 560 $1,179,000
Modoc 20 $64,000
Mono 5 $25,000
Monterey 640 $2,233,000
Napa 150 $645,000
Nevada 110 $407,000
Orange 3,020 $7,520,000
Placer 330 $1,328,000
Plumas 50 $109,000
Riverside 3,020 $10,571,000
Sacramento 3,850 $16,538,000
San Benito 70 $296,000
San Bernardino 3,560 $11,702,000
San Diego 4,590 $13,448,000
San Francisco 3,700 $14,137,000
San Joaquin 1,280 $3,829,000
San Luis Obispo 310 $1,122,000
San Mateo 540 $2,754,000
Santa Barbara 480 $1,587,000
Santa Clara 3,010 $10,837,000
Santa Cruz 420 $1,655,000
Shasta 490 $1,321,000
Sierra 10 $13,000
Siskiyou 90 $209,000
Solano 540 $2,474,000
Sonoma 870 $3,816,000
Stanislaus 1,130 $2,873,000
Sutter 150 $444,000
Tehama 190 $481,000
Trinity 30 $66,000
Tulare 510 $1,217,000
Tuolumne 70 $100,000
Ventura 650 $2,043,000
Yolo 330 $1,215,000
Yuba 130 $441,000

Total 81,000 $257,574,000

Note: Total number of recipients affected and total loss of funds are Department of Social Services estimates and reflect the Governor’s
proposal to eliminate domestic and related services for IHSS recipients with less severe impairments beginning on May 1, 2009. Estimated loss of funds includes federal, state, and county funds. Estimates of affected recipients are rounded to the nearest 10, except for Alpine and Mono counties, and estimates of loss of funds are rounded to the nearest $1,000. County estimates are based on counties’ share of the IHSS caseload and expenditures in December 2008. County estimates may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Source: CBP analysis of Department of Social Services data

forwarded by:
Laura E. Williams, President
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc.
http://www.disabilityrights-cdr.org/
————————————-
from Frank Z:

“I was an IHSS “social worker” in Ventura County. Their definition of social work does not involve concern for the elderly and disabled clients. Rather, it involves a system of insurmountable caseloads resulting in the least amount of attention to the clients. The approach to this program is to give the clients the LEAST amount of help possible. I remember several home visits with our nurse who was there to “assess” the needs of clients. She mentioned several times that “it’s all about saving the taxpayers a few dollars” as we drove passed the Ronald Reagan library to the assisted living complex to do the assessment. The caretakers are low-paid and mostly immigrants and “low-skilled” workers. The SEIU takes a cut of their check but the caretakers receive no health care or any other benefits that a union is supposed to fight for. The caretakers only get paid for the amount of hours authorized for the clients based on the “assessment” and the social workers are encouraged to give as few hours as possible, thereby creating a natural antagonism between caretakers and social workers. The whole situation left me disillusioned and led to me going back to school, partly because the medical benefits, salary, and retirement weren’t enough to reconcile the hypocrisy of the system. When services are cut, the state’s rhetoric always seems to be, “these are difficult financial times and we need to cut spending…” as if it were an isolated incident. However, in my opinion, it is not a matter of balancing the budget but of the value system of classical liberalism and its neo-liberal manifestation. From the seventeenth century, individuals have argued against what were then called “poor laws” in Europe, insisting that they would limit freedom of hardworking individuals and encourage laziness and drunkenness. This same rhetoric is used today when taxing the super-rich is still denounced as an attack on individual liberty. The philosophy of the welfare system is to make it as difficult and shameful as possible to get assistance and to give the bare minimum.

As long as both our “representatives” and “advocates” accept this framework, then they will continue to quibble over what and how much to give and never be held accountable for their capitalist logic of scarcity.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Occupational Health Services (OHS)
• IHSS
• Head of Circulation Services, San Diego County Public Law Library, CA