Families and advocates press committee for funding to trim DSPD wait list; lawmakers hear requests but take only technical motions

Dozens of family members and disability advocates pressed the Utah Social Services Appropriations Subcommittee on requests to reduce the state’s DSPD wait list and to fund supports for people who remain waiting.

Parents and grandparents described day‑to‑day caregiving demands, aggressive or medical needs, and the daily risk of leaving an adult family member without sufficient supervision. Hillary Clark, a parent who said her son Hunter has Kabuki syndrome, autism and epilepsy, told the committee her son has been on the DSPD wait list six years and needs constant, skilled supervision. Christine Humphreys, a grandmother, described her grandson Dane, who is profoundly deaf and autistic, and the family caregiving burdens and travel times to specialized services.

The speakers urged the committee to fund a multi‑part request from the Division of Services for People with Disabilities (DSPD). Angie Pina, director of DSPD, and staff outlined a request that DSPD presented as three linked pieces: ongoing slots to bring people off the wait list; an ongoing peer‑support program to help families still waiting; and staff to operate the programs. Pina told committee members the agency’s real‑time wait list stood at 5,935 people and that the program’s historical average wait time is about 5.7 years (standard deviation 5.7 years), with some individuals waiting decades.

DSPD’s proposal would cost the general fund about $5.4 million ongoing and aims to serve roughly 345 additional people: 214 would be funded based on “most critical need” and 131 would be served via a capped “limited supports” waiver designed to deliver a smaller bundle of services. DSPD also seeks $974,750 ongoing to staff a peer‑support program that would help families still waiting to find community resources, advocacy coaching and other bridge supports; the request includes staffing and administration costs to operate the new slots and supports.

Legislators asked detailed operational questions. Representative Peck and others pressed on the peer support design (how “short‑term” supports can be ongoing in the aggregate), how DSPD cleans and updates the wait list (staff said the agency contacts people at least annually and re‑assesses need), and what families do while waiting (lawmakers and witnesses said families rely on a mix of informal supports but many remain in fragile, unstable situations). Several members noted the moral and fiscal arguments for early intervention and in‑home supports and asked staff for clarifications on how the $5.4 million breaks down into direct provider payments versus administrative costs.

Committee action: the subcommittee did not vote to fund DSPD’s $5.4 million proposal during this meeting. The committee did vote to approve a package of technical budget motions for the long‑term services and supports line item (CJ1–CJ8), which include non‑lapse authority to allow DSPD to use unspent funds for emergency service needs if circumstances require it. The CJ motions were presented as agency and staff technical adjustments and were approved by the committee (see “Votes at a glance” article for the motions record).

Why it matters: DSPD manages services that enable people with developmental disabilities to remain in family homes and community settings. Long wait times can lead to family breakdown, crisis placements and higher costs if individuals require institutional or emergency care. Lawmakers must weigh tradeoffs across many budget priorities; advocates framed the request as both a human‑service imperative and, in cases, a cost‑effective investment that allows families to keep loved ones at home.

Looking ahead: DSPD officials said implementing any funding will require contracting and program setup; the agency said prioritization will continue to focus on those with the most critical needs. The request will return to appropriations discussions as lawmakers finalize reductions and additions later in the session.