SiliconBeat

On Sunday, I took on an especially personal subject in my column, “How One Agency’s Cuts Point To California’s Bleak Future.” The column explored why I think cuts to early intervention services for kids under the age of three are going to hurt our economy in the long run.

The column actually posted online Friday, and since them I’ve gotten a wealth of mostly positive feedback that I wanted to share here.

Phil Hood of San Jose writes:

“I think we all wonder why  our state government in California, and to
some degree, our cities, find it hard to make sensible priorities. It
was a no-brainer to say that services to children under six and to
disabled seniors should not be cut, but those were among the things on
the table right up until the end of the budget process. At some point,
you think someone would have said, “I’d rather lay off half the
governor’s personal staff than cut money to autistic kids.”

There is far more at work here, though, than a shortsighted governor
or legislature. With our proposition system, the power of entrenched
industrial interests and unions, and foolish past decisions.
California needs to start over on the budget process.

I don’t say this to bash our unions. I say it because that is only one
of many structural problems we face. And, until we address those, not
by raising taxes but by putting limits on what the state can do, then
we’ll continue to do stupid things like cut services for autistic
children and close parks and libraries.”

Christine Arnett, who also has a 6-year-old son who is high-functioning autistic, writes:

I cannot over state the value of the early intervention that he received. I have read over 40 books on autism. As I am sure you are aware, research tells us that early and intensive intervention is vital for these kids. We personally lost 1/4 of our respite hours under the new budget. However, my heart broke for families who are just starting this fight and will have no services for their at risk children.”

I tried to make the point about costs down the road, but Paula Lacey, who sits on the Loma Prieta Elementary Joint Union School District board, made it better:

“Besides the significant impact the State’s action will have on children and their families, it also impacts schools, as districts will ultimately be serving these
children. I know I am stating the obvious, but by waiting to provide
needed services, children will come to school less prepared/
developmentally ready to learn. To say the least, it puts these
children at an unfair advantage given the benefits early intervention
yield.

The other issue is the State’s ability to cut these funds when stacked
against the school system’s mandate to provide special education
services for children regardless of the cost. For all intensive
purposes, special education services are an unfunded mandate, with
little federal and State funding allocated for these services.”

Chris Parkinson wondered whether the real problem wasn’t too many layers of beaucracy between the funds and the children:

“…it seems to me if the budget has to feed three agencies before it gets to a child’s needs, that is a significant problem. What you have described is more about government bloat than anything else…”

Austin Tutone lamented that we (the media) weren’t doing enough to root out other wasteful spending to free up money for early intervention services:

“I’m all for for your children’s program 100%. However, government does not have an infinite amount of money. Therefore, we have to prioritize and cut  unnecessary spending in order to fund the children’s program.

The Mercury News has not been using investigative journalism to discover pork in the California Budget.”

“…we provide assessments and other programs for the very children you mention in your article. Prior to these horrendous budget cuts, the amount paid to us by the Regional Center did not cover the costs for providing these services. In the spring, in anticipation of the budget cuts, our reimbursement rate was cut by 7% further widening the gap. This means, of course, that we must do more fundraising to cover this gap…a difficult task in this economy.

Since the Budget Cuts we have learned that some of the services we provide will no longer be covered at all. What this means for organizations like ours is that we must turn to private pay (very difficult, especially in this economy) and develop new programs that will be covered.

So, in addition to the effects on our at-risk children, we also are looking at the potential of losing organizations like ours that may not be able to recover from these decisions by our legislators and governor. This possibility, of course, further endangers this population.”