BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
SB 382 (Liu)
As Amended April 27, 2011
Hearing Date: May 3, 2011
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
TW
SUBJECT
Developmental Services: Regional Centers: Complaints
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide greater transparency of regional center
contracts through additional contract requirements and an annual
report of regional center complaints, as specified. This bill
also would address retaliation by a regional center against a
vendor, vendor applicant, and regional center employee for
filing a complaint against the regional center. This bill would
require regional center contracts to contain language
prohibiting retaliation, which would be developed by the
Department of Developmental Services and subject to stakeholder
input. This bill also contains provisions relating to annual
reports by regional centers and evaluations of regional center
individual program plan procedures.
BACKGROUND
In 1969, the Legislature enacted the Lanterman Developmental
Disabilities Services Act to provide services to people with
developmental disabilities and establish the right of those
individuals to receive state services. The Department of
Developmental Services (DDS), charged with regulatory oversight
of state developmental disability services, contracts with 21
private regional centers to provide services for individuals
with developmental disabilities.
On November 4, 2010, an oversight hearing of California's
regional centers was conducted by the Senate and Assembly
Committees on Human Services. At this hearing, the California
(more)
SB 382 (Liu)
Page 2 of ?
State Auditor reported that an audit performed by the Bureau of
State Audits found that "almost half of the roughly 400 regional
center employees who responded to our survey do not feel safe to
report suspected improprieties. Also, many indicated that
regional centers do not create an atmosphere of mutual trust or
establish open communication." (Bureau of State Audits, Cal.
State Auditor Report 2009-118 - Presentation Document, November
4, 2010.)
Last year, two bills were introduced to address concerns over
regional center retaliation. AB 435 (Committee on
Accountability and Administrative Review), among other things,
would have provided anti-retaliation provisions under the
Lanterman Act to protect regional center employees who file a
complaint alleging misconduct by the regional center or its
employees. AB 435 was held in the Senate Rules Committee.
AB 1589 (Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review)
would have enacted the Regional Center Whistleblower Protection
Act and would have provided retaliation protections for regional
center employees. AB 1589 was held in the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations.
This author-sponsored bill would provide greater transparency of
regional center contracts and require these contracts to contain
retaliation provisions developed by DDS, as specified.
This bill also contains provisions relating to annual reports by
regional centers and evaluations of regional center individual
program plan procedures. This bill has been heard by the Senate
Committee on Human Services for consideration of these
provisions, which are not within this Committee's jurisdiction.
The measure was approved by that committee on April 26, 2011 by
a vote of 7-0.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , the Lanterman Act, generally provides state
services to persons with developmental disabilities and
establishes rights of those individuals to receive such
services. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 4500 et seq.)
Existing law requires contracts entered into between the
Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and regional centers
to include provisions requiring each regional center to render
services in accordance with applicable state laws and
regulations. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 4629(b).)
SB 382 (Liu)
Page 3 of ?
Existing federal law prohibits personnel actions against any
employee because of the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or
grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation. (5
U.S.C. Sec. 2302.)
Existing state law , the California Whistleblower Protection Act,
prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who
discloses information to a government or law enforcement agency
where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the
information discloses a violation of federal or state laws or
regulations. (Lab. Code Sec. 1102.5(b).)
This bill , among other things, would require DDS to develop
processes and procedures to address issues of retaliation
against regional center employees and vendors who may file a
complaint alleging regional center misconduct.
This bill would require these processes and procedures developed
by DDS, in conjunction with the Association of Regional Center
Agencies, and in consultation with a broad representation of
stakeholder groups, as specified, to contain the following:
a requirement for the regional center to report all
allegations of retaliation to its board members and to DDS,
although DDS will not be required to investigate the
allegation unless it receives the allegation directly from
the complaining party;
a process for corrective action by the regional center
and a process for verification of corrective action by DDS;
and
a provision of notice by the regional center to its
employees and vendors detailing the retaliation processes
and procedures developed by DDS, as specified; such notice
shall specify all applicable federal and state laws
prohibiting retaliation.
This bill would require the standard agreement contracts between
DDS and regional centers to contain provisions specifying the
processes and procedures regarding retaliation developed by DDS
under this bill.
This bill would require regional centers to submit an annual
report, as specified, to DDS.
This bill would require DDS to conduct a review of each regional
center's compliance with the procedures for developing
SB 382 (Liu)
Page 4 of ?
individual program plans, as specified.
This bill would require regional centers to publish a directory
of vendorized service providers on their respective Internet web
sites, as specified.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
�SB 382] seeks to provide DDS �Department of Developmental
Services] with more tools to conduct oversight, while using
the preferred contract relationship between DDS and regional
centers to make improvements in regional center performance.
In a time of large scale changes driven by the state's fiscal
crisis, it is critical for DDS and regional centers to monitor
and address how changes are being implemented in a
decentralized system such as the regional center system.
2. Contract provisions regarding retaliation
This bill would require contracts between DDS and regional
centers to contain provisions regarding retaliation processes
and procedures to be developed by DDS. This bill would specify
that DDS would be required to develop the processes and
procedures in conjunction with the Association of Regional
Center Agencies (ARCA) and in consultation with a broad
representation of stakeholder groups, including employees,
consumers and their families, and vendors. Existing law
requires DDS to develop various regional center contract
provisions and requirements with stakeholder input. (Welf. &
Inst. Code Sec. 4620 et seq.)
The author argues that stakeholder input is necessary to
effectively provide a method for employees to report misconduct
by regional centers. DDS and ARCA, the main decision makers of
the retaliation procedures and processes under this bill, have
different concerns regarding retaliation than the employees
themselves, which differ from the concerns of the regional
center clients and their families.
Although this bill would require consultation of stakeholder
groups during the development of retaliation processes and
procedures, this bill would not provide a public process during
SB 382 (Liu)
Page 5 of ?
this development because, although a public process exists for
determining performance objectives of the regional centers, the
standard agreement contracts entered into between DDS and the
regional centers are not statutorily required to be open to a
public process. If a public process was included under this
bill, it could open the door to other standard agreement
contract provisions being open for public debate.
Further, a public input process may not benefit employees who
want to provide their input but are afraid to publicly identify
themselves. In order to address these concerns of limiting
input on the provisions of the standard agreement while still
providing input from relevant stakeholders, this bill would
provide that certain stakeholder groups must be part of the
retaliation provisions development process.
Support : ResCoalition
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : See Background.
Prior Vote : Senate Committee on Human Services (Ayes 7, Noes 0)
**************