Senator Caroline Menjivar
Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee #3, Health and Human Services

Assemblymember Dr. Corey Jackson
Chair, Assembly Budget Subcommittee #2, Human Services

Re: Governor’s 2026-27 Proposed Budget: Department of Developmental Services (4300)

Dear Senator Menjivar and Assemblymember Jackson:

Disability Rights California (DRC) is California’s federally mandated protection and advocacy agency. Our role is to protect and advance the rights of disabled Californians, including the roughly 500,000 individuals projected to be served by California’s developmental services system in the next fiscal year. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Governor’s 2026-2027 Developmental Services Budget.

Federal Access Rule

Now more than ever, California must make every effort to ensure that every dollar spent on services for those with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD) is spent wisely. Doing so requires careful monitoring of how well regional centers and service providers adhere to state and federal requirements and respond to client needs. A meaningful grievance process is essential to that effort.

The Department of Developmental Services (DDS) has stated publicly that the current Section 4731 complaint process does not reliably produce meaningful outcomes, and that its proposed new grievance process is intended to improve individual resolution and strengthen DDS’s ability to identify and respond to systemic noncompliance. We share that goal. But as drafted, the proposal is unlikely to achieve it. It does not clearly require meaningful local resolution, make-whole relief where regional center or provider conduct causes harm, or provide DDS with sufficiently clear tools to address repeated failures.

To better align the proposal with its stated purpose, DRC recommends the following:

1. Clarify DDS’s “front door” responsibilities: We support DDS’s intent to screen grievances before forwarding them to regional centers for local review. But the proposal should clearly define DDS’s responsibilities during the initial 5-day review period, including screening for serious harm or risk of serious harm and helping redirect people to the correct process when DDS determines the issue belongs elsewhere.
2. Strengthen notice, access to information, and anti-retaliation protections:
   1. The proposal requires that people receive notice of their right to file a grievance, but it is silent as to how or when. Regional centers should provide clear notice of grievance rights at key touchpoints, such as the intake process or at IPP meetings.
   2. The proposal should also conform to federal rules requiring access to all information reviewed during the grievance investigation, not just documents already in a person’s case file.
   3. Anti-retaliation protections should be strengthened to support participation and candor in the process by:
      1. extending them to witnesses and others who assist or participate;
      2. applying them to service providers, not just regional centers and state-operated facilities; and
      3. defining retaliatory action, including a rebuttable presumption when adverse action closely follows grievance activity.
3. Require resolution plans to include an investigation summary and legal/factual basis: Under DDS’s proposal, resolution plans just need to include a few elements, such as a brief summary of the grievance, dates of grievance review meetings, and the proposed resolution. This is not enough. They should address each allegation, identify the facts relied on, and cite the laws, regulations, or policies applied. These changes would improve fairness for the individual and gives DDS a meaningful record for oversight.
4. Ensure resolution plans are reasonably calculated to meaningfully resolve the grievance and prevent recurrence: The proposal’s examples of resolutions that can be contained in resolution plans include “convening the IPP team,” “ongoing communication or meetings with the regional center or state-operated facility,” “completion of any identified steps in the resolution plan,” and “a statement regarding the outcomes of an investigation of alleged noncompliance with the home and community-based settings rule.” This is not enough.
   
   Where violations cause documented out-of-pocket costs, the resolution plan should require reimbursement. Where violations result in the loss, delay, reduction, interruption, or non-delivery of agreed-upon services, the resolution plan should require consideration of compensatory services designed to place the person in the position they would have been absent the violation.
   
   We recognize that individualized resolutions can be complex. In some cases, the grievance reviewer should be able to order individualized remedies directly. In others, the grievance reviewer may need to consult with or convene the IPP team when needed. Disputes about the adequacy of an individualized remedy could remain subject to the existing fair hearing process.
5. Make DDS review meaningful and enforceable: When an individual is not satisfied with a regional center’s resolution plan, the proposal merely requires DDS to review it for “appropriateness relative to the grievance” and notify the parties of its decision. This is not enough. If a person seeks DDS review, DDS should issue a written decision that either affirms the resolution plan, remands it with instructions and deadlines, or orders other corrective action. The standard of “appropriateness relative to the grievance” should be defined to require that the plan be reasonably calculated to timely remedy harm and prevent recurrence.
6. Adjust timelines on both ends: We have heard from the community that 60 days is too long for regional centers to investigate grievances and issue resolution plans, while 7 days is too short for people to review a plan, obtain advice, and decide whether to seek DDS review. The proposal should shorten the deadline for regional centers to issue resolution plans and extend the time for an individual to request DDS review.
7. Use grievance data for system oversight and distinct levels of intervention: We appreciate that under the current proposal, DDS would review grievance data for operational or systemic problems. But the proposal should also specify a tiered intervention framework, including technical assistance, corrective action plans with measurable outcomes and timelines, monitoring and reporting requirements, and audits where appropriate. DDS should also have clear authority to escalate when the same problems reoccur.
8. Keep the scope of grievances broad and consistent with current law: The new process should not narrow the kinds of grievances people can bring. We recommend that the definition of grievance expressly include the existing standard covering violations of “any right to which a grievant is entitled.”

Regional Center Oversight

Regional centers administer a publicly funded system serving hundreds of thousands of Californians with IDD. Strong oversight requires governance structures that remain accountable to the people most affected by board decisions and are equipped to use data and community input to improve access, equity, and outcomes.

DDS’s trailer bill proposes significant changes to regional center oversight and board governance. DRC supports reforms that improve transparency and performance. But some provisions appear to treat “professionalization” as an end in itself, rather than a means of improving outcomes for people served. We recommend the following changes:

1. Preserve consumer and family leadership on boards while modernizing the language: We recommend preserving the existing requirement that a minimum of 50 percent of board members be people with developmental disabilities or their family members (rather than “parents or legal guardians”), and that no less than 25 percent be people with developmental disabilities. These thresholds are important to ensure that regional center boards remain accountable to the community served and that governance reflects lived realities and service-system impacts.
2. Ensure self-advocate board members can meaningfully participate in board decisions and decisionmaking through support and accommodations: We support requiring at least two people with intellectual or developmental disabilities on governing boards. But plain-language materials alone are not enough. The proposal should also require individualized supports and reasonable accommodations, such as pre-meeting support, communication supports, assistive technology, interpreters, captioning, and accessible formats, so self-advocates can participate as full voting members on an equal basis.
3. Reject language that explicitly excludes lived experience as a expertise related to developmental disability programs: We are concerned about language that treats “developmental disability program expertise” as requiring professionalized experience while explicitly excluding personal or family lived experience. Board member qualifications should speak for themselves. Codifying that lived experience does not count sets a dangerous statutory precedent and undermines the bill’s broader goals of strengthening consumer and family participation in governance.
4. Ensure boards have access to expertise without turning membership into a credentialing exercise: We understand DDS’s desire for boards overseeing large budgets to have members with legal, fiscal, management, and governance expertise. But the solution should not be to narrow who can serve through what may be viewed as rigid credential requirements that favor traditional professional pathways and make it harder to recruit boards that reflect the community, including self-advocates and families from historically excluded groups. Instead, the proposal should clarify that boards must ensure access to these competencies through a combination of board membership expertise, training, staff support, or outside expertise.
5. Strengthen oversight requirements so “professionalization” stays grounded in community outcomes: If the state is increasing expectations for board expertise, boards and executive directors should also be accountable for what people actually experience from their regional center. Executive director evaluations should include responsiveness to community needs and concerns, particularly for historically underserved groups, including people with language or communication access barriers, people with co-occurring behavioral or mental health needs, justice-involved adults, system-involved youth, and unhoused people or those at risk of homelessness. Boards should also review language access and cultural competency activities and outcomes, including timely IPP translations and responsiveness to public stakeholder feedback.

Employment Access Alignment

We applaud DDS’s proposal to partner with the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) to, in their words, “create a ‘no wrong door’ service delivery model for people with [IDD] who want to get a job.” For too long, people with IDD have been forced to “ping pong” between DDS and DOR because federal funding rules divide responsibility for employment supports across systems and phases of employment. This proposal would address that problem through a new interagency agreement.

This is a marked departure from other recent attempt to promote cross-sector collaboration for people with IDD, such as the Competitive Integrated Employment Blueprint, that leaned heavily on encouraging local approaches to collaboration while doing little to break down the state-level funding silos driving the siloed nature of how employment services are structured and delivered. As such, the burden of navigating the complicated rules each system remained on people with disabilities and their families.

In contrast, this proposal would ease much of that burden by shifting it to the state level. The new interagency agreement would minimize service disruption by making it easier for providers to operate in and be paid by both systems, which in turn would make it easier for individuals to be supported by a single provider for the entirety of their employment journey.  This intentional alignment of policies and funding streams across systems should enable providers to integrate their DOR and DDS-funded services at the operational level statewide in ways that were not previously possible.

We strongly support this proposal, not just for its potential to positively impact employment outcomes, but for what it represents more broadly: acknowledgement of (1) how cross-sector administrative complexity limits access to services, particularly for those with IDD and other cognitive disabilities; and (2) the proactive role government can and should play in disrupting such systemic barriers through deliberate design.   

Budget Proposal to Extend Contract for Rate Reform Expertise

We support DDS’s proposal to extend the contract with the entity providing technical expertise on rate reform. DDS should also consult that contractor on how its rate models can be more systematically tiered or differentiated to support people with the most intensive need in accessing home and community-based services (HCBS).

HCBS better meet the needs of disabled people and are more cost-effective than institutional care. Yet, Californians with the most complex needs still too often cannot access the support they need to live in the community. Current policies, including health and safety waivers, have produced a patchwork of augmented rates and higher-skilled staffing arrangements. California needs a more coherent approach. Service models and rates should be designed with people who have the highest support needs in mind, rather than relying on one-off fixes after the fact. We hope DDS’s rate reform contractor can help move our system in that direction.

Implementation from Prior Year Statewide Standardization of Generic Services Requirements

The Department should be similarly proactive with the standardization requirements of SB 138, especially with regard to generic services. As public benefits are pared back and health insurance becomes more expensive and harder to navigate, access to generic services is becoming more difficult across health and human services systems. The burden of navigating that complexity is overwhelming families, outpacing regional center capacity, and increasing the risk that people with IDD will fall through the cracks.

The Lanterman Act’s generic services requirement was meant to steward public funds wisely, not become a barrier to meeting people’s needs. But without detailed regulations or directives, regional centers have struggled to apply that requirement with precision, consistency, and fairness. That work should not fall to individual clients or service coordinators. The state should clarify what counts as a generic service, when exhaustion is required, and what exhaustion actually means. We urge DDS to prioritize this work.

Federal Cuts and Risks to HCBS

DRC remains deeply concerned about federal cuts under H.R. 1 and related policies and their implications for people with IDD.

We appreciate DDS’s collaboration with DHCS to mitigate the harm of H.R. 1 policies, such as work requirements, on those with IDD and their families. But more is needed to protect the developmental services system from the downstream effects of these changes. Increased Medi-Cal administrative complexity will lead to avoidable loss of coverage and missed opportunities for federal reimbursement. Regional centers are not well positioned to answer complex Medi-Cal questions about more frequent redeterminations or changes to immigrant eligibility.

We are also alarmed by the Administration’s decision to reduce HCBS as a response to the budget deficit caused by H.R. 1. In particular, the proposed IHSS cuts would threaten continuity of care for many of the approximately 150,000 regional center consumers who also rely on IHSS to remain in the community. Those costs are not true savings if they are shifted to regional centers, which may be unprepared to absorb them. And the harm will not be felt equally: people and families with more resources may be able to navigate the fallout, while those already facing structural barriers or with the highest support needs will be pushed further to the margins.

We are likewise deeply concerned by the proposed termination of Medi-Cal for certain immigrant groups. Many people with IDD, or their family members, could lose access to health coverage. Without Medi-Cal-funded therapies and care, people may experience worsening conditions, missed developmental milestones, and preventable crises.

The state should look beyond short-term budget cycles and take a longer view of how to protect HCBS across both the Medi-Cal and Lanterman systems. That is necessary both to uphold disabled people’s rights and to preserve cost-effective community-based supports over time.

-

Thank you for your consideration of the comments and suggestions above. Please contact Vivian Haun at vivian.haun@disabilityrightsca.org or William Leiner at william.leiner@disabilityrightsca.org with any questions.

cc:
Members of the Senate and Assembly Budget Subcommittees on Health and Human Services
Pete Cervinka, Department of Developmental Services
Carla Castaneda, Department of Developmental Services
Michi Gates, Department of Developmental Services
Yang Lee, Department of Developmental Services
Kim Johnson, Secretary, Health and Human Services Agency
Corrin Buchanan, Health and Human Services Agency
Debra Cooper, Health and Human Services Agency
Samantha Lui, Health and Human Services Agency
Chris Odneal, Department of Finance
Omar Sanchez, Department of Finance
Kris Cook, Department of Finance
Lourdes Morales, Department of Finance
Thomas Locke, Department of Finance
Kia Cha, Department of Finance
Mareva Brown, Office of the Senate President Pro Tempore
Elizabeth Freeman, Senate Budget Subcommittee #3
Kelsy Castillo, Office of the Speaker of the Assembly
Nicole Vazquez, Assembly Budget Subcommittee #2
Karina Hendren, Legislative Analyst’s Office
Mark Newton, Legislative Analyst’s Office