In a public meeting about the future of the Sonoma Developmental Center, it seemed clear to the hundreds present, including elected state and county officials, that SDC’s closure would be a tragic political failure.
Bills have been introduced in the legislature that would close it ASAP and disperse its residents to community care settings. Its 1,600 acres would be sold to the highest bidder for development. Democrats, who control state government, will have the final say.
The Legislative Analyst (the legislature’s bean-counter) has said SDC residents can be served more cheaply in community-living settings. However, like adequate community living alternatives, numbers to support alleged savings are more than debatable.
We’ve seen this movie before. California emptied its mental institutions, convinced patients could be more humanely and more cheaply served in community settings. Countless thousands are indeed now living in communities – but in alleys, parks, doorways, under bridges, and getting no care worthy of the name.
To maximize their opportunities for a normal life, the law requires the disabled to be cared for in “the least restrictive environment” necessary to meet their needs. But this praiseworthy objective has been frustrated for decades by – what else? – lack of money from the legislature.
An SDC tour should be mandatory for those wanting to close it. There they’d meet residents for whom community living is not and never will be a viable alternative, given their mental/physical needs, the realities of community care and current levels of funding.
The Parent Hospital Association, composed of family and friends of SDC, fully supports a choice of care options. But without competent, well-funded, family-feasible, reliable and accountable community-care options, SDC is the only choice for many. As with the mentally ill, everything we’ve learned suggests that community living for those who truly need SDC’s capabilities is another bean-counter’s fantasy.
SDC’s population has dwindled because of a moratorium on admitting new residents for whom SDC is the least restrictive care environment. The Department of Developmental Services (DDS) is “deflecting” new admissions to community alternatives, often denying them the care they need.
The moratorium misleadingly makes SDC appear unnecessary and, per capita, too costly. Equally disturbing, some families claim the Regional Centers and their providers consider themselves exempt from disclosure requirements of California’s Public Records Act, frustrating the public’s ability to obtain information on the quality of community care. As of press deadline, DDS’s official response to attempts to verify this claim was, “The Department cannot offer legal advice on interpretations of State law, including the PRA.” Draw your own conclusions.
Meeting attendees seemed to share common goals: (a) Keep SDC open and resume admissions for those who need it, (b) protect its land from developers and (c) expand its mission to care for other underserved populations.
We agree. In addition to those for whom SDC is the least restrictive care environment, SDC could serve community-living mentally and physically challenged people, including the homeless; serve emotionally disturbed children requiring a secure residential placement in order to safely learn; provide residential substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation for thousands; offer specialized rehabilitation and therapy for the poor; and (Add Your Idea Here).
Here’s our idea: SDC as a branch campus of Santa Rosa Junior College or UC Davis Medical School, training students how to care for fragile multiple-disability populations, wherever they will be served.
A future for SDC and its talented staff requires imagination, heart and political determination. Once emptied, it will be lost forever, trafficked to those eager to turn its prized real estate into wine-country mansions, malls, wineries or event centers for the privileged, and tourists.
That would be the ultimate in abusing the disabled, a disaster for the environment and a betrayal by political leaders claiming to care about either.
We join SDC families in saying: Please — not on our watch. If you agree, call Tony Thurmond, Chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, at 916.319.2015, and tell him so.
Be First to Comment