ÚLTIMAS NOTICIAS:

> El gobernador Newsom ha presentado su propuesta presupuestaria revisada

> El Gobierno federal retiene injustamente $1.3 mil millones en pagos de Medicaid

Disability Voices United Comments on the Current California Budget:

Judy Mark, President
310-621-2045
judymark@dvunited.org
disabilityvoicesunited.org

March 9, 2026

Senator Caroline Menjivar, Chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee #3
Assemblymember Dr. Corey Jackson, Chair, Assembly Budget Committee #2
State Capitol, Sacramento CA 95831

SUBJECT: Governor’s budget and trailer bill language on the Department of Developmental Services and IHSS

Dear Senator Menjivar and Assemblymember Dr. Jackson,

On behalf of Disability Voices United, an organization led by and for people with disabilities and their families, I want to thank you for your leadership around policies affecting disabled people, especially those served by regional centers. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Governor’s proposed state budget and trailer bill language.

First, we are grateful that the Governor’s budget includes only very small, specific cuts and a general net increase of $2.4 billion, primarily for caseload increases. While we support much of the DDS budget, DVU does have some concerns with some of the details. In general, as H.R. 1 begins to get implemented and people with developmental disabilities are facing drastic cuts to their services and health care, it seems important for the budget to focus on the urgent needs of the people DDS serves. We provide more details on our views of the budget and associated trailer bill language below.

1.    OPPOSE: Self-Determination Program – Reduction of $45 million in the SDP – DVU is led by the people who wrote and passed the self-determination law in 2013 and are leaders in training the community. We have significant concerns about the budget reducing the cost of the SDP by $45 million and haven’t received adequate information about how this savings will be realized. DVU has asked DDS whether SDP participants should expect a cut to their individual budgets – which would amount to about a 12% cut per participant – and were told that the savings would come from decreased enrollment from original projections.

We would recommend to the Legislature that they request information from DDS about how the $45 million in savings will occur in the SDP.

2.    OPPOSE: Self-Determination Program – (1) Transfer of $2 million in general funds from local SDP committees to DDS operations; (2) TBL – The budget proposes to move $2 million in federal participation funds from regional center self-determination Local Volunteer Advisory Committees (LVAC) to increase DDS operations funding for SDP staff. Since 2018, these funds have been distributed by SDP LVACs to community organizations to train and support current and prospective SDP participants and their families and to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in enrollment. LVACs have funded local support groups in Spanish, conferences, resource fairs, and many trainings that have helped thousands of people enter the SDP. DDS proposes to use these funds to pay for operations staff at DDS to cover “administrative costs” without any clarity of what they would be doing. Currently, there are about 8,900 participants in the SDP and it seems surprising that there would be that level of administrative costs at DDS for less than 2% of the population they serve.

The associated TBL is particularly problematic as DDS proposes to remove language from the original self-determination law. Current language states that the federal participation funds from the original SDP pilot project should go toward implementation of the SDP, including reducing racial and ethnic disparities, training independent facilitators, participants, families and service coordinators, and to offset costs at regional centers and the State Council who convenes the statewide advisory committee. DDS frequently complains that participants, families, IFs and others don’t understand the SDP, yet they are removing all of the funds that go to training. Moreover, Latinos and African-Americans are significantly underrepresented in the SDP, and DDS wants to remove funds that provide trainings and materials in multiple languages and that target underserved communities.

The Legislature should ask how adding to the DDS bureaucracy will improve equity within the SDP and provide the training and support that will be lost when the funds to local committees are cut.

3.    OPPOSE: Regional center board of directors restructuring TBL – DDS has provided a substantial amount of TBL relating to regional center boards of directors. We have serious concerns about some aspects of the language, although there are parts that we believe could be beneficial with appropriate oversight. Specifically, the TBL proposes to reduce the number of board members to 10-15 people and deletes existing law that requires boards to be composed of at least 50% of people served and parents. In the way the TBL is currently drafted, there could theoretically be a regional center board with no parents or family members serving on it. The TBL does require that regional centers have a Consumer Advisory Committee and that two members of that committee be on the board, which we support. But there is no requirement that any board members be a parent or family member. This is certainly not what the framers of the Lanterman Act – all parents – conceived of when they passed this groundbreaking law.

4.    DVU recommends keeping the following language in 4622(c) but with the underlined additions:

“a minimum of 50 percent of the members of the governing board shall be persons with developmental disabilities or their parents, or legal guardians family members.”

This allows for the inclusion of other family members including siblings and grandparents who are often deeply involved in their loved one’s lives. We also recommend deleting the TBL’s 4622(d), which just “encourages” regional centers to recruit family members.

In addition, we believe that a board of 10 individuals will be too small to govern organizations that have budgets as high as $1 billion, as laid out in TBL in 4622(a). It is quite common that board members have busy lives, especially as they meet the requirements of having specific professional experience. A board as small as 10 could easily not meet quorum requirements. DVU recommends that boards should have 15-18 members. Moreover, boards of directors should have the authority to decide how many board members they want. We recommend striking the following provision in TBL:

4622. The state shall contract only with agencies, agencies to serve as regional centers as described in Section 4620, the governing boards of which conform to all of the following criteria: criteria by no later than July 1, 2027

(a) The governing board shall be composed of a minimum of 10 and no more than 15 individuals with demonstrated interest in, or knowledge of, developmental disabilities.

Finally, we recommend language change in 4622(b)(5) speaking to the types of experience board members should have. This provision in TBL states that a board member should have experience in “Developmental disability programs, as evidenced by at least one year of paid or unpaid policy advocacy work at the municipal, county, or state level, or at least three years of service or program administration, beyond personal or family lived experience with a developmental disability.” This language could be offensive to those with the exact lived experience we believe is critical to understanding the role of the regional center. We recommend deleting this phrase:

“Developmental disability programs, as evidenced by at least one year of paid or unpaid policy advocacy work at the municipal, county, or state level, or at least three years of service or program administration. , beyond personal or family lived experience with a developmental disability.

5.    SUPPORT IF AMENDED: Training of Boards of Directors on their roles and boards of directors’ evaluation of performance of executive director – TBL. DVU supports the language in TBL 4622(f), which lays out requirements for training and mandates that the training be provided or approved by the department. In fact, DVU sponsored AB1147 (Addis) which had a similar provision, but was deleted because of opposition by DDS at the time. DVU also supports the language in TBL 4622(j)(2), which lays out metrics for governing boards to review the performance of the regional center executive director.

DVU recommends adding additional language to the TBL to strengthen these provisions:

4622(f)(1) All members of the governing board, prior to assuming their role and annually thereafter to maintain their role, shall complete trainings provided by or approved by the department. The department shall consult the State Council on Developmental Disabilities and Disability Rights California and provide opportunities for community input as they develop the content for the training.

For training topics in 4622(f)(1), we recommend adding the following provisions:

(F)  ​Service access and equity issues including POS data by ethnicity and race, cultural humility and competency of regional center staff, diversity of regional center staff, and language access.

(G)  ​Metrics to evaluate the performance of the executive director including compliance with contract objectives and required audits, and a clean independent fiscal audit with no significant material findings.

4622(f)(3) As part of its monitoring responsibility, the department shall review the method by which the training and support provided to board members to verify that it enables maximum understanding and participation by board members. The department shall also survey board members about their ability to meaningfully participate in, and understand the subjects and votes, at board meetings. If board members report that they are unable to meaningfully participate, DDS must work with the regional center and the board member to ensure adequate and appropriate accommodations and supports are provided.

DVU recommends keeping in the following provision in current law that the TBL deletes, as we always support more transparency:

4622(F)(3) “Each regional center shall post on its internet website information regarding the training and support provided to board members.”

DVU also recommends adding two important provisions from AB 1147 to ensure that board members feel protected and not worried about losing their services as they meet their oversight responsibilities:

The department shall establish, and each board shall adopt, an antiretaliation policy for board members that requires department approval for any reduction in services for a consumer board member or the family member of a family board member.

The department shall establish and adopt a grievance procedure whereby a governing board member who has concerns, complaints, or questions may contact a specific executive at the department.

6.    OPPOSE: Increasing dollar amount of contracts voted on by board members – TBL. DVU opposes increasing the amount of the contracts that regional center boards of directors approve. DDS proposes to increase the cost of contracts from $250,000 to $350,000 with additional increases of $50,000 every five years. DDS provides no justification for this change. It is very surprising that DDS would propose this change under the heading of improving regional center oversight. In fact, we believe that this change would actually limit the oversight of boards at the same time that DDS is proposing to professionalize boards. The historic issue has been that board members don’t understand how to analyze a contract and usually “rubber stamp” all contracts that appear before them. Our hope is that the newly professionalized and trained boards would actually ask the right questions to ensure that these large contracts are providing better outcomes for the people they serve.

We recommend keeping the current amount of $250,000 in statute.

7.    SUPPORT: LOIS – Life Outcomes Improvement System – Increase of $14.6 million ($5.7 million general fund) and TBL – DVU supports the additional expense to develop LOIS. We also support the associated trailer bill language that requires all regional centers to use LOIS and not use their various internal systems.

We recommend to the legislature that they continue to monitor the implementation of LOIS. As previous attempts at developing a new IT system have failed and cost the state millions of dollars, it is critical that this new system succeed. Moreover, it is important for the legislature to monitor whether LOIS is user friendly, plain language, culturally competent, and provides maximum transparency, especially for the sections that are forward facing to the disability community and their families. It is long overdue for people served by regional centers and their families to have easy access to reports written about them, bills from their service providers, and all correspondence about them. It is also critical that this system has restricted access so that only those who have permission can view details about an individual.

8.    OPPOSE: Extending time of DDS operation of regional centers – DDS proposes in TBL, Sec 4636, to strike the following language:

In no event shall the department directly operate a regional center program for longer than 120 days before contracting with a new governing board.

DVU opposes deleting this provision as DDS has provided no justification in their TBL fact sheet, and it is unclear what problem they are trying to solve. The restriction of 120 days was placed into statute precisely because it was not the intention of the legislature for a state department or their designee to run a regional center in perpetuity.

It would also significantly increase costs, which are not provided for in the budget. For example, in the past few years, DDS took over North Los Angeles County Regional Center for 120 days and required the regional center to pay, out of their limited operations budget, over $1 million dollars to a company to run the regional center. The million dollars was above and beyond the operating budget that NLACRC had approved. We believe that if this provision is not struck, then the costs could be so significant that it could impact the services provided by regional centers.

9.    SUPPORT: Ending courtesy vendorization and no requirement to have physical location for service providers – DVU strongly supports establishing a statewide vendorship system for service providers. While this was already established in previous TBL that DVU co-sponsored, eliminating courtesy vendorization is a key part of this process. Service providers have complained for decades about some regional centers’ incredibly slow pace in approving courtesy vendorships as well as the varying insurance and other requirements between regional centers. DVU has been a vendor at a regional center in the past for the conferences we sponsor. We found the courtesy vendorship process to be cumbersome and confusing.

In addition, DVU strongly supports removing the requirement of service providers to maintain a physical location in California unless required for their service delivery. This is particularly important for financial management services (FMS) who support the Self-Determination Program. The largest FMSs are based in other states and provide all of their services remotely. This will save money for many service providers that could be spent on increasing their rates of pay for their employees.

10. SUPPORT IF AMENDED: Performance measures – DVU strongly supports provisions in Section 4629 including performance and outcome measures, including improvement indicators and benchmarks in regional center contracts and requiring both the department and boards to evaluate the regional center based on their ability to achieve these measures. We particularly appreciate that these measures are tied to both financial incentives if they are met, as well levels of probationary status if they are not met. We would recommend adding the following provision to this Section 4629(d)(2):

When a regional center is placed on probation, the department shall provide the state council and the clients’ rights advocacy contractor identified in Section 4433 with a copy of the correction plan, timeline, and any other action taken by the department relating to the probationary status of the regional center and request feedback on whether the correction plan and timeline are adequate.

We are confused, however, about how the TBL describes how these measures are developed and encourage the legislature to recommend changes to clarify the process. Our confusion lies in Section 4629(d) in which outcome measures and benchmarks are department approved and standardized. This contrasts with Section 4629(B) in which measures are “developed through a public process led by the department” as well as “circulating a draft of performance measures to the community for input prior to a second public meeting where additional public input will be taken and considered before the regional center’s adoption of the measures.” It should be clear that DDS has statewide standardized measures that all regional centers must meet or exceed, and that boards can develop additional measures based on community input.

The Legislature should ask for clarification of the process and clearer language in TBL so that regional center boards and community members understand.

11. SUPPORT IF AMENDED: Federal Access Rule changes to the grievance process and increase in staff (increase of $183.2 million/$118.4 million general fund) – We support legislative changes to respond to the new Federal Access Rules requirements. DDS is proposing changing Section 4731 that allows for civil rights complaints to the new process in Section 4519.2. DVU believes that the current process of 4731 complaints has not provided relief to most people who have filed these complaints. But nothing in the proposed language gives us confidence that the new system will change previous outcomes.

The Legislature should require the department to issue directives with clear intent of the grievance process and should monitor implementation, including requiring data on the types of complaints and their resolutions.

12. SUPPORT IF AMENDED: Clarification of overtime for supported living workers – DVU supports this clarification and has been advocating for several years on this issue for workers providing this type of service through the Self-Determination Program. The lack of clarification has caused many class action lawsuits and millions of dollars wasted. However, the language that DDS provided, which adds Section 4689.9 to WIC, will not satisfy our concerns in the Self-Determination Program. We are, therefore, supporting amendments offered by the California Community Living Network and others that state:

4689.9(a) Notwithstanding any other law, a personal attendant shall be compensated at one and one-half times the hourly wage for work that exceeds 40 hours in a workweek. These provisions shall apply only toward hours worked by personal attendants in the performance of services described in Section 4689 or those outlined in Section 4685.8 that are paid through financial management services. Nothing in this provision shall be interpreted to alter Section 1(B) of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 15-2001. For purposes of this section, “personal attendant” shall be defined as outlined in subdivision (d) of Section 1451 of the Labor Code. For purposes of this section, “workweek” shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2(R) of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 15-2001. Unless an employer establishes an alternative workweek consistent with that provision, the default workweek shall begin at 12:00 a.m. Sunday and end at 11:59 p.m. the following Saturday.

13. CONCERNS – Large number of additional permanent staff added at DDS headquarters ($3.8 million total/About $3 million general fund) – DVU is extremely worried about what lies ahead for people with disabilities as the drastic cuts from H.R. 1 begin to be implemented. It is critical that we prioritize the health and safety of disabled people over increasing bureaucracy. Thus, it seems imprudent at this time for DDS to add new permanent headquarters staff, including 9 staff focused on the Federal Access Rule, 20 staff working on LOIS, 6 staff added to the autism branch, 5 staff added to the employment team, 6 staff working on the SDP and 39 staff working on human resources. While some of these funds are being transferred and redirected, adding so many new permanent staff presents an image of bureaucratic growth while people with disabilities’ lives hang in the balance.

The Legislature should ask how DDS plans to sustain this new level of staffing at headquarters as H.R. 1’s effects take place and how they can explain this to the disabled people they serve and their families as they face significant cuts to their services.

14. OPPOSE – Transfer of costs to counties in the IHSS program – DVU opposes the proposal in the Governor’s budget to increase the counties’ share of cost for the In-Home Supportive Services program. With counties facing large financial pressures resulting from federal actions to limit costs in the Medicaid program, increasing the cost to counties for in-home services will likely result in limiting access to this critical service that is essential for individuals to remain out of institutions and live in their own homes. Moreover, the proposal will increase cost pressures for the programs supported by DDS as IHSS is one of the biggest generic resources for people served by regional centers.

Thank you very much for your consideration and we would be happy to meet with you to answer any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Judy Mark
President, Disability Voices United

cc:
Members, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee #3 Members, Assembly Budget Subcommittee #2
Elizabeth Freeman, Consultant, Senate Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services
Mareva Brown, Office of Senate President Pro Tempore
Nicole Vazquez, Consultant, Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services
Kelsy Castillo, Office of the Assembly Speaker
Anthony Archie, Senate Republican Fiscal Consultant
Eric Deitz, Assembly Republican Caucus
Spencer Winkle, Senate Republican Caucus
Kim Johnson, Secretary, California Health and Human Services Agency
Debra Cooper, California Health and Human Services Agency
Pete Cervinka, Director, Department of Developmental Services
Yang Lee, Deputy Director, Department of Developmental Services
Norma Salazar-Ibarra, Department of Developmental Services
Christopher Odneal, Department of Finance
Omar Sanchez, Department of Finance
Andrew Duffy, Department of Finance
Karina Hendren, Legislative Analyst Office
Kimberly Fuentes, Office Senator Menjivar
Joe Parra, Policy Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus
Richard Figueroa, Deputy Cabinet Secretary, Office of the Governor