Question C - Assigned Text Readings - Assignment 4

Question C - Assigned Text Readings - Assignment 4 Minimum wordcount = 100; no maximum Explain the factors and reasons that disability and aging systems, previously "parallel universes," are now intersecting. Include the page numbers and remember to be specific and use your own words except for brief direct quotes if desired. 20 Question D - Assigned Text Readings - Assignment 4 Minimum wordcount = 100; no maximum Identify and describe five examples for the success of the Dew Coalition. Please summarize in your own words and please include the page numbers for the information you used. Reading for Question D The DEW (disabled, elderly and workers) coalition was built to address state budget fairness and to respond to the horrendous 2001 2002 budget cuts proposed in Kansas (Topeka independent living resource Center, 2012). It was a broad-based-issue coalition primarily comprised of Grasswoods activist. It was not hard for it to be inclusive-everyone is for budget fairness, from taxpayers where I happy to "share the wealth" to those who never want to pay taxes again and want to cut off all social programs. In Kansas, the state government was in a budget crisis. To reduce cost, there were going to cut durable medical equipment from the Medicaid budget-that means people wouldn't get wheelchairs, walkers, and other rehabilitation/therapeutic devices. They're going to cut oxygen. Talk about something sounding mean-that was like kicking a puppy. What do the legislators say? Sorry, but we can't afford oxygen anymore. Breathing cost too much. Taxes have been cut in the past few years, and this big budget crisis hit in Kansas and all over the country. We reduced revenue. The economy tanked, and now there wasn't enough money. "Maybe next year, but in the meantime, cut, cut, cut. How do you respond to this? We found a number of things in our state. Our strategy was to play off the f idea that people hate taxes and refused to fund programs and services at higher levels. We took a starting point from the very conservative and vocal legislator in state. He took public this exact slogan, everybody hates taxes. He said he had traveled all over his district and asked everybody, do you like Taxes? They all said no. So his response to request not to cut the budget was "sorry we can't help you. Nobody wants to pay more for anything, including your needs." We responded to the stance by publicizing a study asking people if they would support a tax increase for certain specific things like public education, health, and social programs. The study showed that support is dependent and how you ask the question. No one likes taxes, but if you ask the public if you would be willing to pay for a good education system for kids, or for basic health services for poor, elderly, and disabled people, the overwhelmingly consistent answer is yes. Knowing this, and understanding that data reporting support for tax increase was conflicting, we came up with advocacy campaign to prove support existed among Kansans. Again we played off the rhetoric of this key legislator. One of the things that he said was "if you want more money, then send me more money." He said that would be a sign that people wanted to pay more taxes. So that is exactly what we did. Our coalition made up something we called DEW bucks. They were paper dollars modeled after the US dollar bill on the front the phrase "this note is to protect Kansas City citizens from unfair budget cuts" appeared. On the back it read, "this DEW dollar indicates our willingness to pay an additional dollar of tax in order to protect the states most vulnerable citizens from unfair budget cuts." On the back triangle, it said, "citizens of Kansas are watching". In place of the serial number was a hotline number for the Topeka independent living resource Center. Another toll-free number was listed so that people threatened by the cuts could call to receive legal assistance. The DEW Buck was very effective. As this was a broad coalition thousands and thousands of DEW Bucks were sent out. People either love them or hated them, but they got attention. We held town hall meetings all over the state talking with hundreds of attendance about issues, handing out flyers, and signing up people for other political action activities. We even organized and a eight-block-long parade that ended in the rally at the state capital. There was a good mixture of stakeholders, including representatives, of labor, aging, independent living, at all times in everything we did. It was very obvious we had a diverse constituency. Our goal was central coalition issue was to have the budget cuts restored. That happened. We met our goal. The budget cuts to began to sound so evil that even the people who were for them cannot explain why they needed to take away peoples oxygen, wheelchairs and medications and things like that. So we won. After the victory, the coalition broke up. It was not a perfect natural alliance. We join together on a specific campaign around and agreed-upon issue for a limited period of time. Having had this experience, these groups now work together as specific issues of mutual interest in Kansas as they arise. Reading for Question C Parallel universes now intersecting If nothing else, our 1995-1996 survey substantiated the now-common observation that the aging and developmental disability systems until fairly recently were parallel universes, which one focused through diverse prisms and early interventions with the intent of improving the individuals Limited life course, while the other channeled its energies and resources into serving large numbers of mainstream older adults whose conditions do not require labor-intensive interventions. This is been the reality for the system since their inception. The federal Older Americans act and the developmental disabilities assistance and bill of rights act delineate fundamental differences and philosophy. The OOA outlines a series of entitlements that are accessible once one reaches age 60. OAA appropriations activates a network reaching from the federal Department of Health and human services to the various states units on aging to local area agencies on aging, prioritize certain categories of older Americans and establish a system that values numbers of people served through programs. We have called this the McDonaldlionization of human services with billions and billions served. On the other hand, the developmental disability system is less uniform. There are several models employed within the states to administer disability-related funds and Medicaid is a major payer of services. Basically, once screened and approved for services, a consumer of developmental disability services retains a slot for funds. Waiting list for services may be common, but funded persons obtain individualized services. Beyond the differences in programs versus individualized services mentalities, there are other operational differences. The aging network functions most efficiently with mainstream elders (i.g those without special needs) since programmatic funding allocations must be stretched to serve the greatest number. The developmental disability services System actualizes early intervention maintaining extensive pediatric expertise in the belief that help early in life will improve prospects for the individual over the life course. So, in effect, the aging network disability has little disabilities-related expertise, while the disability system has little aging-related expertise. The survival out to later life of increasing numbers of individuals with formerly life-shortening developmental disabilities has begun to change this arrangement. Early pediatrically driven interventions and work-like skills training by the developmental disability system, and mainstream-orientated group programming by the aging network, as good as they may have been, will no longer be sufficient, for they fail to account for the needs and contributions of aging adults with life long disabilities. These adults may live beyond life's work phase. looking forward to retirement. They may wish to engage in community resources like senior citizen centers, in order to develop another side of themselves. They may need to plan for life beyond their caregiving parents, for the majority of those are currently older (ages 50, 60, and above) with lifelong disabilities have grown so in the company of their parents, not in an institutional setting but in the community