PAI Blog > Cracks in the Public Structures
A Step Backward for Developmentally Disabled Vermonters
Challenges for Change, Vermont’s government efficiency plan, has a tough act to follow when it comes to improving services for Vermonters with developmental disabilities—life-long cognitive or intellectual disabilities that usually makes independent living impossible. More than 20 years ago, Vermont began a community-based care system, which allowed the state to close the Brandon Training School. Vermont now has a nationally recognized program that produces better results for far less money—the goal put forward by Challenges for Change this year.
In the early 1990s, the annual cost of care, in today’s dollars, was $289,176 per person living at Brandon Training School. Vermont’s community-based system now costs less than one-fifth that amount. More important, because people can now stay in their homes and communities, their quality of life is better.
A recent Department of Disabilities, Aging & Independent Living (DAIL) analysis concluded that the agency already had wrung most of the inefficiencies out of its current community support system. If Challenges for Change can, in fact, improve the lives of more Vermonters, it is worth pursuing. But it shouldn’t be an excuse for service reductions that create more hardship.
That’s what happened after the last round of cuts. In response to the worsening recession, the administration and the Legislature cut the fiscal 2009 budget twice in the months after it was approved. About $5 million of the cuts fell on Developmental Disability Services1 and the 15 non-profit organizations that provide community-based services. This may look like a small amount, but even relatively minor cuts can exact major consequences.
The cuts hit the 3,734 Vermonters receiving services, in addition to thousands of home providers, family members, and agency employees. About a third of those receiving services live with their families and get minimal state support of up to $1,000 per year. Of the remaining two-thirds, more than 700 live with their families with the help of community and employment supports, respite care, case management and other supports. Most of the rest receive home support—they live with or are supervised by an agency staff person or contracted worker and do not live with family.
Most people receiving developmental disability assistance will never be able to live independent of services, although the level of help can vary over a person’s life. Respite services, home supports, community supports, and work supports are all critical functions in the community-based care system the state has established. When any or all of the services are cut, the person’s living situation—stable, beneficial, and cost effective—is disrupted.
Reports compiled by the state in early 2009 detailed some of the program changes necessary to accomplish the state’s budget cuts. Here’s how those changes affect people with developmental disabilities:2
- Reduction of respite services and/or home supports for at least 600 individuals. About 50 percent of Vermonters who receive developmental disabilities services live with a family member, and respite services allow many of these family members a necessary break. Cuts to respite care mean that a family member may no longer be able to care for a person at home, requiring a more expensive, less beneficial living arrangement. The majority of people who receive home supports are living with a contracted home provider, for whom respite is a necessary part of the arrangement.
- Reduction of community supports. This year, 1,514 individuals are receiving community supports, which are designed to develop skills, social supports, and positive growth for individuals. The availability of community supports also often allows a family caregiver the opportunity to have a job. But the cuts have curtailed the amount and type of services available and limited family work opportunities. In Rutland and Washington counties community supports have been reconfigured. Individuals are now being supervised as part of group day programs, which tend to segregate people from the community—reversing the philosophy the state has embraced for the past 20 years.
- Elimination of funding for the purchase of sensory-related items, communication needs, therapies, fitness and health activities, and adaptive equipment. These cuts affect 340 people.
- Elimination of 70 full-time positions in the 15 non-profit organizations, and pay cuts, reduced hours, or both for 130 more workers. Some of these were case managers, the people who ensure that appropriate services are delivered for the lowest cost.
If Challenges builds on Vermont’s success, it can help many Vermonters with developmental disabilities live more productive and independent lives. But if the plan is simply a fig leaf for cutting the budget, it will further harm people and undermine years of investment in a successful system of care.
Source: Developmental Disability Services, Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council
Download a PDF of the fact sheet.
- A service of the Department of Disabilities, Aging & Independent Living (DAIL) in the Agency of Human Services. [↩]
- This is based on service reduction plans prepared as part of the administration’s fiscal 2009 budget rescissions by the nonprofit agencies who provide community-based services to developmentally disabled individuals. While those cuts have been enacted, there has not been a follow-up survey of the agencies to document which actions they have actually taken. This report assumes that the service reduction plans from fiscal 2009 have been implemented. [↩]
Vermont’s Bridges are Going Nowhere Good
Failing or closed bridges have come to symbolize our deteriorating public structures. They are the inevitable result of trying to balance a budget with cuts alone.
Vermont has now closed 16 bridges to all traffic. Eleven more are closed for the short term, with a temporary bridge in place until the original structure is rehabilitated. And there are restrictions—such as reduced weight, speed, or vehicle height—on 100 other bridges throughout the state.
The Structures Section of the Vermont Agency of Transportation is responsible for the design, inspection, and management of the states’ bridges as well as its culverts, rail structures, and large overhead signs and retaining walls.
According to the section’s 2010 Annual Report, Vermont has pushed off bridge repairs for so long that it would be unable to clear the backlog at current spending levels.
“Decades of deferred maintenance has pushed structure needs above annual funding levels,” and that is likely to mean higher costs in the long run, the report said. “Without adequate attention, many bridges will require replacement, restriction, or closure long before their desired lifespan is complete,” the report continued. “This will only further stress Vermont’s limited transportation resources, restrict Vermonters’ mobility, and negatively affect the state’s overall economy.”
Problems with funding for highway and bridge maintenance have been building for years. Some of the major revenue sources that support the transportation budget have not been growing as fast as the cost of repairing and replacing the aging bridges. The gasoline tax, for example, is based on the number of gallons of fuel sold, not on the price. As Vermonters have moved to more efficient cars or cut back on their driving in recent years, gasoline tax receipts have declined.
Vermont can’t begin to catch up on the backlog of deteriorating bridges until it addresses its revenue problem. The state must fund the transportation budget from sources that will grow at the same pace as the cost of repairs.
Source: Vermont Agency of Transportation
Download a PDF of the report.
No Supper for Schoolchildren
December 2009
A year ago the federal government said it would give Vermont funds to serve supper to children from low-income families at after-school programs. But because the state eliminated a key job, those kids will have to wait—indefinitely.
The new At-Risk Supper Program would join other federal programs, such as the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, that are administered by the state’s Child Nutrition Programs. These programs serve nutritious meals and snacks to eligible children in schools, daycares, and after-school programs—an important part of safeguarding the health of children whose families may suffer food insecurity.
To participate in the At-Risk Supper Program schools or organizations must have:
- at least half the children eligible for free or reduced-price lunches
- a licensed after-school program
- kitchen equipment and staff to prepare suppers
Federal money funds the whole program, from its state administrator to food, training, and school-level personnel. Over one-third of Vermont’s schools reported that 50 percent or more of their students—more than a third of the state’s schoolchildren—are eligible for free or reduced-price meals. But in an effort to reduce its work force, the state has cut the position of the person who would administer the supper program: the Child and Adult Care Food Program Coordinator at the Department of Education. Without sufficient personnel to develop the program’s application or train staff, Vermont kids are missing out on good, hot meals.
For more information: http://www.vtnohunger.org/info/out_of_school.php
Source: Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger, Vermont Department of Education
Vermont Judiciary
October 2009
The Judicial Branch (courts) of state government was established under the Constitution to protect individual rights and to ensure everyone their day in court. In addition to providing Vermonters with a place to resolve legal disputes, the Judiciary helps to provide balance of state powers as one of the three co-equal branches of state government: Vermont’s Courts, Governor, and Legislature.
The Judiciary has been subject to budget cuts in recent years like the rest of state government in response to the economic recession and reduced state revenues. Figure 1 shows the general fund budget for the Judiciary for the five most recent fiscal years. After reaching a peak in fiscal 2008, funding has dropped and then leveled off.
While level funding may seem like a reasonable position in the current economic climate, in fact, level funding results in cuts in services that the Judiciary is able to deliver. Over the years, the Judiciary has faced cost increases from:
• general inflation,
• pay increases for staff,
• new initiatives by the other two branches of government,
• changes in accounting practices that put costs on the Judiciary, such as fee for state-owned space, that were previously not in the Judiciary budget.
As a result, the Judiciary has had to leave staff positions vacant over the past decade. Figure 2 shows the number of vacant positions for each fiscal year (each column is a series of abbreviated job titles). In fiscal 2009 there were 25 vacant positions, more than eight times the number a decade earlier. The Judiciary is using less expensive and less experienced temporary employees to help fill the gap.
Some of the consequences to Vermonters from these cuts:
• The courts are closed 2.5 days each month
• District (criminal) and Family Court cases are getting resolved more slowly
• Cases requiring longer hearings are being scheduled farther into the future
• Judges particularly report inadequate time for cases involving juveniles
• Courts are not open when people need access to them
Source: Court Administrator
Blog Posts
Latest posts
- “Per-capita tax burden” is misleading
- The vote: 138 to 0
- The middle class needs the governor’s attention
- Is Vermont’s declining student enrollment driving up costs?
- Statement on Gov. Peter Shumlin’s 2012 State of the State Address