In-home care back in budget

January 20, 2012

A budget-mandated reduction of in-home care for 372,000 elderly and disabled Californians was blocked Thursday by a federal judge. [SF Chronicle]

Gov. Jerry Brown’s current budget would slash 20 percent from a program called In-Home Supportive Services if revenue projections failed to materialize — which has happened.

A temporary restraining order was issued by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in December, and this week’s decision finalized that decision. The cutback was slated to take effect Jan. 1.

The judge said she feared the reductions would force people into nursing homes, which would violate federal law.

The current level of funding now will be maintained.

An appeals court could be asked by state officials to lift the injunction, and the Department of Social Services is reviewing the ruling.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The pay is $15/hour for non relatives, less if you’re taking care of one of your own family.

Care givers in the past have not been well vetted. Hopefully, a background check is now run by the agency to eliminate convicted felons, drug addicts, etc. But since when is a California program well run. They are usually set up to be as liberal as possible, which means the agency has no real way to check, verify, or prevent fraud.

What, in theory, is a good program, has been very much abused by relatives who have the time and means to take care of grandma, but apply for money from the state because it’s there. You have cases of a “do nothing” grown child who moves in with grandma (on grandma’s ss) and is taking care of grandma for the money from the state. Sometimes they are just taking advantage of grandma, but grandma doesn’t complain because she’s told that the alternative is to go to a nursing home.

Remember, the case of the man in Carrisa Plains who was allegedly tortured and held for three days. One of suspects was a “caregiver”.

Notice no judge set aside The Dream Act.

In home care is a great thing but unfortunately is extremely misused and a sham for too many scummers.

Yep. I worked part-time for County In-Home Support Services years ago…before marriage & kids. I met some wonderful elderly folks who appreciated some home-cooked meals, light housekeeping and laundry services.

The problem I saw was that 6 out of 7 of my elderly “clients” already had family in the area to help them. The family just didn’t want to be bothered so why not take advantage of a County program? Let the taxpayers foot the bill.

I have no problem being taxed to help elderly folks who truly need assistance but this government-run In-Home program has become a sham for sure!

True Dat, PasoParent,

Now multiply that at least a thousand fold, and THAT is what is ailing our society today. Greed and self-interest is so pervasive and endemic in all aspects of Govt – Leaders, Employees and recipients. It is not just limited to Wall Street.

Come on, it’s a judge, once appointed next to impossible to remove. Their decisions don’t have to make sense or be realistic. Another reason a judges term should not be lifetime

How can a judge “restrain” a budget-mandated reduction”?

“The current level of funding now will be maintained”?

If there is no money for this, how can this be?

Will the judge take the responsibility to find the money to make this happen, or will she wash her hands of it and just sit back and watch the resulting chaos?