BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
BILL NO: AB 2204
A
AUTHOR: Beall
B
VERSION: April 5, 2010
HEARING DATE: June 22, 2010
2
FISCAL: Appropriations
2
0
CONSULTANT:
4
Park and Hailey
SUBJECT
Developmental services: stakeholder groups
SUMMARY
Requires the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) to
take into account the state's ethnic, sexual orientation,
gender identity, geographic, and socioeconomic orientation
diversity when convening or consulting with stakeholder
groups under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities
Services Act (Lanterman Act).
ABSTRACT
Existing law:
1)Establishes, under the Lanterman Act, 21 nonprofit
regional centers, which contract with DDS to provide case
management services, conduct assessments, and develop and
implement an individual program plan (IPP) for each
person determined to be eligible for regional center
services under the Lanterman Act.
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2204 (Beall) Page
2
2)Establishes DDS as the state department responsible for
overall administration of the requirements Lanterman Act.
3)Defines "stakeholder organizations" as statewide
organizations representing the interests of consumers,
family members, and service providers, and statewide
advocacy organizations.
4)Requires that, when convening any task force or advisory
group, DDS make its best effort to ensure representation
by consumers and family members representing California's
multicultural diversity.
This bill:
1)Requires DDS, when convening stakeholder groups pursuant
to the Lanterman Act, to take into account the state's
ethnic, sexual orientation, gender identity, geographic,
and socioeconomic diversity and to use best efforts to
include stakeholder groups that, collectively, reflect
the interests of the state's diverse population.
2)Requires DDS, when preparing reports to the Legislature
required under the Lanterman Act related to activities
that involve stakeholder groups, to include a description
of how it considered diversity in convening the
stakeholders.
3)Makes non-substantive changes to the definition of
"stakeholder organizations."
FISCAL IMPACT
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this
bill generates minor absorbable workload for DDS.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Author's statement
According to the author, "[i]t is important that all
segments of California's diverse population have a voice in
policy decisions related to the provision of services to
people with developmental disabilities under the Lanterman
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2204 (Beall) Page
3
Act. This means that DDS should consider diversity --
cultural, ethnic, sexual orientation, gender identity,
geographic, and socioeconomic -- when it is required to
convene stakeholder groups or to consult with stakeholders
on issues related to the budget or policies impacting the
availability and delivery of services to regional center
consumers throughout the state."
The population of those served by regional centers reflects
the racial, cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic
diversity of California. For example, in terms of
ethnicity, Whites comprised 46.8 percent of the regional
center consumer population in December 1997 but only 39.7
percent of the population in December 2007. Latinos, on
the other hand, went from 25.9 percent of the regional
center population in December 1997 to 33.2 percent in
December 2007. [DDS Fact Book, 11th Edition (October
2008), p. 9.] DDS has recognized that "[i]t is essential
that DDS take actions to ensure services are provided in a
culturally competent manner, and choices in services are
available to meet the needs and preferences of such a
diverse population." ( Working Toward a Better Future for
Persons with Developmental Disabilities and Their Families:
Strategic Plan 2003-2008, " p. 10.)
Recent independent statistical studies using DDS data found
disparities in regional center spending on services related
to ethnicity, even when controlling for client needs. For
example, all racial and ethnic groups (Asian/Pacific
Islanders, African Americans, and Hispanics) were 23 to 31
percent less likely to receive any services than were
Whites. For those who received services, even when client
need is taken into account, annual per-person expenditures
for non-White racial and ethnic groups were significantly
lower than for Whites: Hispanics received services costing
$3,190 less, Asian/Pacific Islanders received services
costing $2,560 less, and African Americans received
services costing $1,320 less. [Harrington, C. & Kang, T.,
Disparities in service utilization and expenditures for
individuals with developmental disabilities, Disability &
Health Journal, 1:184, 190 (2008).]
While the results of purchase-of-service studies have been
varied and open to interpretation, the studies, overall,
show that ethnicity does have a statistically significant
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2204 (Beall) Page
4
relationship to service expenditures, even with the
legitimate cost factors controlled for. [Purchase of
Service Study II: Final Report Summary, DDS, Report to the
Legislature (December 2003).] Based on survey data of
consumers and family members, as opposed to data on dollars
spent, the 2003 DDS study reported several significant
ethnic differences in such measures as receipt of services,
the need for additional resources, and satisfaction with
supports. Results showed, for example, that consumers from
all identified minority groups had higher reported levels
of need for additional resources than did White consumers.
(Ibid. at pages 7-8.) Latinos reported significantly
greater unmet needs. (Ibid. at pages 9-10.)
The author of this bill contends that, if nothing else,
these data show that there is at least the perception among
many regional center consumers and family members that
services are not being provided and needs are not being met
equitably. Explicit recognition in the Lanterman Act that
diversity must be considered in convening stakeholder
groups is one step in ensuring that all segments of the
state's diverse population are included in discussions of
fiscal and policy issues affecting the delivery of services
to all Californians with developmental disabilities.
There are several provisions in the Lanterman Act directing
DDS to convene or consult with stakeholder organizations or
groups. Recently, for example, the 2009-10 Budget trailer
bill related to DDS [AB 9 X4 (Evans), Chapter 9, Statutes
of 2009-10 Fourth Extraordinary Session] requires DDS to
consult with stakeholders on a number of initiatives,
including development of an alternative service delivery
model providing for an Individual Choice Budget. AB 9 X4
also requires an ongoing stakeholder review process, and a
report to the Assembly and Senate Budget Committees, on
implementation of cost containment measures and their
effect on the developmental disabilities services system.
This bill requires only that, in convening stakeholder
groups, DDS take into account the state's diversity in
designated categories and use best efforts to include
stakeholder groups that, collectively, reflect the
interests of the state's diverse population. If a
Legislative report is required as part of an activity
involving stakeholders, DDS would be required to describe
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 2204 (Beall) Page
5
how stakeholder diversity was taken into account.
PRIOR VOTES
Assembly Floor: 45 - 27
Assembly Appropriations: 11 - 5
Assembly Human Services: 4 - 2
COMMENTS
Clarifying stakeholder group membership
If the Legislature desires DDS to assemble stakeholder
groups whose members - not just whose organizations --
reflect California's diversity, then an amendment is in
order on page 5, lines 23-24: " include convene stakeholder
groups that, collectively, reflect the interests of the
state's diverse population."
Even with a clarifying amendment, an implementation
strategy should include the department's inviting
organizations that are regional, that have an ethnic basis,
or that by their charter have low-income persons or gay,
lesbian, and transgender individuals in positions of
leadership.
POSITIONS
Support: American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees
Disability Rights California
State Council on Developmental Disabilities
The Arc of California
Oppose: None received
-- END --