Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disability Employment Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel rejects bill removing outside accreditation requirement for regional-center employment programs
Summary
AB 1335, which would have eliminated the CARF accreditation requirement for regional-center vendored employment programs and shifted oversight to state agencies, failed to advance after committee discussion. Backers said CARF duplication imposes costs and administrative burdens; opponents warned about weakening quality checks for people with IDD.
Assemblymember Gonzales presented AB 1335, a proposal to remove the outside CARF accreditation requirement for regional center–vendored employment programs and place oversight responsibility with state agencies and regional centers.
Supporters from provider organizations described CARF as duplicative, costly and a barrier to entry. “CARF accreditation ... is a significant financial administrative burden on service providers,” said Andrea Kroome, executive director at Alliance, who said her organization had paid thousands of dollars and diverted staff time to accreditation processes. Alona Yorkshire of the Adult Skills Center and other providers said eliminating the outside accreditation would increase access to employment services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Opponents, including at least one committee member, argued the state has made progress on quality systems and cautioned against removing a third-party check that advocates say builds family and community trust. On the committee floor, the chair indicated he would recommend a no vote. The item was left on call at one point and was recorded as failing later in the hearing (final committee action recorded as failing to pass, 2–1 as recorded on the hearing sheet).
Nut graf: The bill sought to reduce perceived duplication and administrative cost by removing a private accreditation requirement and consolidating oversight with state entities. Supporters framed the change as expanding access; opponents cautioned it risked weakening consumer protections.
Procedure and outcome: Committee debate included testimony from providers and a mix of support and concern from members. The committee did not refer the bill forward; the final record shows the committee vote did not carry (measure failed in committee).
Ending: AB 1335 will not advance from this committee based on the final committee action recorded in the hearing. Sponsors said they would continue discussions with stakeholders about quality assurance and implementation.
