funding 'rules'

From my very early days of working with DD/MR people, I have known that the funding for services for an DD/MR person is dependent on the person’s served functioning levels and their specific needs and issues. Last Thursday night, 1-05-06, at one of my client’s IPC meetings, I learned something new about it. I have to say, it makes little sense to me. When the person served turns of legal age of consent, which is 21 for DD/MR people, they have a major evaluation to determine their service needs and funding. They are no longer considered to be children who are mostly dependent on their parents or guardians at 21 and are considered to be at the stage of their life to be an independent adult, as much as they can, anyway. The State uses some complex formula of IQ, cognitive and physical abilities, the specific disorders and issues. Makes perfect sense, right? However, they also factor in the person’s current situation. All well and fine, except that this initial determent does NOT change, throughout the person’s entire life time! In some very few, very select cases, the person may have some very slight changes over their entire life. However, and my issue with this is, how many people actually have little or no changes in their life’s? Very few. Then how is it that the State can even remotely consider the fact of not ever changing there funding ruling? That is just absurd to me!
In Wyoming, a DD/MR person can stay in high school until they are 21. There is a very good program for them to attend that teaches them life skills like cooking and cleaning and they also get job skills. If the person happens to turn 21 sometime before the end of this program, they can stay until the school session is over for that year. If a person served is evaluated at that time, then obviously their current situation is going to change. Well, obvious to me anyway. It is the State’s ‘rule’ to not allow them to continue going after they turn 21. Yet, they make a life time determination of funding for services and factor in that they are going to school and not working and still living with their parents. My main client, R, is a prime example of this. This is exactly what has happened to R. When R was initially evaluated last year, R was still going to school and not working. R’s funds were set-up to be 10 hours per week. That is all R really needed, then. Now, R is out of school, living in an apartment separate from R's parents, and working a job 5 days a week. R can not maintain a job without a job coach. R has been fired from everyone of R’s jobs prior to me and constant supervision because of R’s issues. In R's case manger’s and R's parent’s opinion, R may never be able to function enough to be without supervisor at work. There are some other serious factors and issues that I can not discuss here because of confidentiality that need addressed in order for R to maintain independence and safety. Therefore, R needs 25 hours a week of services now, not 10. Yet, the funding will not change. I just do not see the logic in this. Maybe there is, but I can not see it. R’s case manager said they are working to change this ‘rule,’ but why was it even a ‘rule’ to begin with?

The problem for me now is that I have to provide R with 25 hours a week services on funds that were set-up for 10. In other words, I have to work nearly 3 times more hours for the same money. I really feel at times that the State just takes advantage of the providers. Anyway, I am hoping it can get changed for R. It will just take some time.

I was hoping in this new year my business would grown and things would happen for the better. 2006 it is starting off getting worse, not better.