Mother of Disabled Fears Prop. 165

During the state budget crisis this past August, The Times profiled the impact of the delinquent budget on my family (“In a Stressful State,” Aug. 27).

Specifically, the story focused upon the state’s lack of payment of In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) benefits to my two severely developmentally disabled adult sons, Jonathan and Michael.

The IHSS program allows persons, such as my sons and the elderly, to remain in their home by paying minimum wage to a care provider who performs services necessary to meet their needs.

In our family, I am my sons’ IHSS care provider, and the payment I receive is my income with which I support our family.

The IHSS program was cut by 12%, and virtually every other program which serves the needs of the disabled and elderly were victims of budgetary slashing.

Throughout the state of California, thousands of our most vulnerable citizens are terrified about their future. Although they were given the opportunity to appeal the 12% IHSS cutback, the appeal process is complicated and cumbersome purposely, so as to discourage recipients from filing.

Moreover, the appeal process is futile. I filed an appeal for both of my sons, who are completely dependent upon others for all of their needs. The County of Orange determined that my sons were able to summon emergency assistance. But my sons cannot even speak. It was a standard denial.

Rather than helping the disabled and the elderly, the state is causing further problems by threatening their quality of life and independence. The only option available to these persons if they do not receive sufficient support through IHSS and Regional Centers is institutionalization or nursing facilities.

The cost of this option to the state (taxpayers) is exorbitant when compared to the cost of in-home care. Ethically and morally, it is wrong. Economically, it is stupid. Yet, this is the direction our governor and legislators are heading in their budget attacks on social services programs.

The signpost for the road to destroying programs which assist the disabled and elderly is Proposition 165. This proposition goes under the guise of welfare reform, but once the layers of its stipulations are stripped away, its true intent is revealed.

Proposition 165 gives the governor more power than any single elected official should ever possess. The governor could reduce funding by any amount to IHSS and other services for the disabled and elderly.

Proposition 165 also contributes to the confusion of the general citizenry regarding the difference between welfare and social services programs to the blind, disabled and elderly. This difference is simple: choice. Welfare recipients have a choice. Jonathan and Michael do not have a choice.

The reason my sons do not work is because they cannot work. Like many parents of developmentally disabled children, I held a job outside of our home until it was impossible to maintain that job and care for my sons.

To keep our family together, I applied for the IHSS program. Now, I work for the state of California, and in so doing, I save its taxpayers nearly $140,000 a year.

But if Proposition 165 passes, I may be forced to institutionalize my sons by this time next year. This past summer, I was worried. As Election Day approaches, I am frightened.

ROSLYN HOWARD, Fullerton