Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Intake And Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers Hear Push and Pushback on DDS Plan to Standardize Intake and Modernize Needs Assessments
Summary
The Assembly subcommittee heard a two‑part Department of Developmental Services proposal to standardize eligibility intake across regional centers and to modernize post‑eligibility strengths-and‑needs evaluations. DDS and the LAO argued the work would improve equity; disability advocates and families urged a slower, evidence‑based approach and warned a new tool could reduce services.
The Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Human Services held a hearing on proposals from the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) to (1) standardize regional center intake/eligibility assessments and (2) modernize post‑eligibility strengths‑and‑needs evaluation tools used to inform Individual Program Plans (IPPs). Chair Jackson opened the session by saying no votes would be taken and that public comment would be at the end of the hearing.
Karina Hendren of the Legislative Analyst's Office told the committee the proposal has two parts: a standardized intake eligibility assessment and a separate strengths‑and‑needs evaluation. Hendren said statutory intent in SB 138 (2023) directed DDS toward greater statewide uniformity and noted DDS data showing regional centers met statutory timelines in roughly 70% of cases in fiscal year 2024–25. "The choice before the legislature now is whether to authorize the department to prepare a proposal for legislative approval that would set more detailed parameters for implementation," Hendren said.
DDS Director Pete Cervenka framed the work as a study‑period, multi‑year effort that would not implement changes without later legislative approval. "Individuals and families deserve better," Cervenka said, adding that the proposal is meant to improve equitable access at the "front door" without changing statutory definitions in the Lanterman Act. DDS described the Client Development Evaluation Report (CDER) as outdated and said a modernized tool could offer more consistent, evidence‑based information to IPP teams.
DDS staff emphasized safeguards. Michi Gates, chief deputy director, said any change would require robust community input and legislative approval and would not replace the IPP process. Christine Bagley, who testified about tool design and validation, told the committee that CDER contains outdated language, inconsistent scoring, and scoring definitions that lack operational clarity — problems that complicate cross‑region comparison.
Researchers and advocates urged caution. Charlene Harrington, a professor emerita at the University of California, San Francisco, said assessment data are associated with service allocation and that inequities by race and ethnicity appear large. "Replacing the CDER would be expensive and time consuming," she said, and warned that updated instruments must be coupled with complete assessment completion and use of the data for planning to advance equity.
Families and advocacy organizations repeatedly asked the committee to slow the process. Fernando Gomez, a community leader and father, said the creation of a new statewide assessment is "one of the most significant policy changes our system has considered in decades" and asked the committee to require DDS to demonstrate with evidence that a new tool will improve equity without creating new disparities. Multiple public commenters told the committee they feared a statewide instrument could become a ceiling that limits individualized planning and could threaten eligibility or reduce services.
The administration and LAO offered alternatives and study plans: panelists identified several off‑the‑shelf tools used elsewhere (for example, the Supports Intensity Scale and interRAI) and said the department intends a landscape analysis and community co‑design. Chair Jackson repeatedly pressed for validation, fidelity, and guarantees that the IPP, not a score, will remain the decision vehicle for services.
No votes were taken. The subcommittee said it would continue deliberations, seek additional details about validation and implementation plans, and consider statutory language changes before any authorization for implementation is advanced.
