David,
I really don't want to get in a pissing match...but....
Believe me I am NOT touting California as to having the best and most
inovative programs.........this is not about disability movements or a
system of rights & services....
What I said was, that California is the only state that provides a certain
level of services, cradle to grave, to a definitive classification of people
with disabilities, specifically people with developmental disabilities. This
was written into law, called the Lanterman Act.
Unlike other states which may provide better and more innovate programs than
California, we have no waiting lists. All people with developmental
disabilities are eligible for services under the Lanterman act. If you
qualify under the california, not Federal definitions of developmental
disabilities, you are eligible for services from cradle to grave.
Myself, who was born with physical disabilities, would not be eligible for
services under the Lanterman Act. I would probably not get even a look by
the department of rehabilitation because those with the most severe need get
served first.
Please do not believe that I was putting down the hard work of those around
the country who have struggled to get the support and services necessary to
live a good life. Neither am I advocating that California is the leader of
the disability movement or in the provision of services and programs.
Thomas Hamlett
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of David
> Pfeiffer
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 6:02 PM
> To: Disability Studies Research List
> Subject: Re: Quality of Life of CRU residents
>
>
> And so does Massachusetts. Why am I so adamant about giving non-California
> disability movements credit? Because I lived in Massachusetts from 1970 to
> 1997 and saw the hard work which persons with disabilities (and I always
> include developmental disabilities and non-physical disabilities in that
> phrase) put into creating a very comprehensive system of rights and
> services. People with disabilities in a number of other states - Illinois,
> Texas, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania, and others - also worked hard
> doing the same thing. And I was the founder (along with another dozen
> people) and first chair of the Massachusetts Coalition of Citizens with
> Disabilities.
> David Pfeiffer
>
> On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Hamlett wrote:
>
> > David,
> >
> > I think we may have some miscommunications. The problem that I wasn't
> > specific enough to state that it was an entitlement program for
> people with
> > developmental disabilities.
> >
> > The entitlement that I referred to is called the Lanterman Act.
> This piece
> > of legislation, passed in 1977, provides services to every
> californian who
> > has a developmental disability.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Pfeiffer <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Thursday, March 11, 1999 12:17 PM
> > Subject: RE: Quality of Life of CRU residents
> >
> >
> > >Sorry, but California is NOT the only state with an entitlement program
> > >for people with disabilities. Massachusetts, for example,
> established in
> > >1981 in a case based upon Constitutional Amendment 114 passed
> in 1980 that
> > >discrimination based on a disability violated the person's civil rights
> > >(way before the ADA) and using that decision there are such things as
> > >treatment and community placement which are entitlements in a
> > >Constitutional sense. Connecticut also has such an amendment to its
> > >Constitution. I do wish people in California would realize
> that there are
> > >other states in which disability movements realized major objectives.
> > >David Pfeiffer
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Thomas Hamlett wrote:
> > >
> > >> California, in the US, which has the only entitlement
> program for people
> > >> with disabilities has had a couple of studies that has looked at the
> > quality
> > >> of life of those who have been moved out of state
> institutions as part of
> > a
> > >> lawsuit.
> > >>
> > >> One was the Conroy study which was a 5 yr longitudinal study and the
> > other
> > >> was the Berkely Planning study.
> > >>
> > >> Thomas Hamlett
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > >> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> > >> > [log in to unmask]
> > >> > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 6:15 PM
> > >> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > >> > Subject: Quality of Life of CRU residents
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I am currently researching the degree to which people with an
> > intellectual
> > >> > disability/learning disability/mental retardation who live in small
> > group
> > >> > congregate care facilities (Community Residential Units in
> Australia)
> > >> > providing 24-hour support are integrated into their community.
> > >> >
> > >> > In particular I am interested in identifying their:
> > >> > ongoing contact with people who do not have a disability and
> > >> > who are NOT
> > >> > paid to be involved with them;
> > >> > time spent with people who are not disabled; and
> > >> > use of generic services
> > >> >
> > >> > I am interested in finding out about other research in this area.
> > >> >
> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > ---------
> > >> > -------------------------
> > >> > John Storey Phone: +61 3 9616 7956
> > FAX:
> > >> > +61 3 9616 8555
> > >> > Statewide IHAS Coordinator Email: BH:
> > >> > [log in to unmask]
> > >> > Continuing Care, Service Devt, AH:
> > >> > [log in to unmask]
> > >> > Disability Services Branch, Victorian Department of Human Services
> > >> > 18/555 Collins St (PO Box 4057), MELBOURNE, Victoria 3162
> , AUSTRALIA
> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > ---------
> > >> > -------------------------
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|