Assembly Budget Subcommittee No 2 Human Services

Good afternoon, Chair Jackson. Karina Hendren, LAO. The subcommittee has asked our office to provide background information to introduce this item. We first want to note that the proposal has two parts. The first part titled Standardizing Intake Eligibility Assessment Processes relates to a regional center's determination of whether a person is eligible for Lanterman Act services. The second part of the proposal titled Modernizing Strengths and Need Evaluation relates to the identification of a person's strengths and needs after they are determined to be eligible for Landerman Act services. We'll next provide more details about each part of the proposal. Part one, standardizing intake eligibility assessment processes would affect the process that regional centers use to determine whether an individual has a developmental disability that is considered to be a substantial disability qualifying for services under the Lanterman Act. Today's agenda includes more details on how statute defines the terms developmental disability and substantial disability. The Lanterman Act establishes that any person believed to have a developmental disability is eligible for intake services in a regional center. Statute does not go into detail on the exact way that regional centers should assess whether a person meets the definition of a substantial developmental disability. Statute also specifies timelines in which regional centers must complete their eligibility determinations. According to DDS compliance standards data, regional centers met these timelines in about 70% of cases in fiscal year 2024-25. Data has shown disparities in spending per person on developmental services when disaggregated by race and ethnicity In response to this finding the legislature adopted SB 138 in 2023 SB 138 is budget legislation that establishes legislative intent to provide more statewide uniformity and consistency and promote equity in the administrative practices and services of regional centers. As part of SB 138, the legislature directed DDS to establish a standardized intake process. The proposal before the legislature today is intended to make progress towards this requirement and by extension to reduce disparities. DDS has stated that the first part of the proposal addresses inconsistencies across regional centers eligibility processes. Specifically, the department notes that regional centers differ when diagnosing substantially disabling developmental disabilities. The department has stated that its proposal is needed for achieving equity and consistency in individuals' experiences with the regional center eligibility assessment process. Now moving on to part two of the proposal, modernizing strengths and needs evaluation. This would affect the process that regional centers use to assess their clients' strengths and needs to help inform the individual program plan or IPP process. The IPP is an agreement between the regional center and the individual served, identifying the services that will help the individual reach their goals. The Lanterman Act establishes that each client's IPP must be developed through a process of individualized needs determination. The legislature's codified intent is that the IPP is centered on the individual and their family and considers the needs and preferences of the individual. Statute also states that regional centers must gather information and conduct assessments as part of the planning process. The Client Development Evaluation Report or CEEDAR is one type of assessment tool that regional centers can use to help inform the IPP. According to DDS, an updated CDER is required at least once every three years. And the CDER should also be updated whenever there is a significant change in a person's physical or mental capabilities. Regional centers can also use the CDER as a tool to help determine whether an individual's services might qualify to receive federal matching funds through Medicaid. SB 138 does not specifically direct DDS to address regional centers' needs evaluation processes. Nonetheless, DDS stated that this part of the proposal would also help improve consistency and equity across the state. The department has noted that the use of the CDER varies across regional centers. DDS stated that the second part of the proposal is meant to establish a consistent, equitable, and evidence-based way for the developmental services system to understand each person's unique strengths and needs regardless of where they live. For both parts of the proposal, existing law establishes the legislature's intent and goals broadly, but it does not specify details of the implementation process. 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. And next, the department will provide more details on the proposal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pete Chervinka, Director at the Department of Developmental Services. I have some opening remarks, and my team will expand on those with more detail. Simply put, individuals and families deserve better. Two of the three proposals before you today directly address critical problems that have been identified in our meetings with community groups, in private meetings, and through the development of California's Master Plan for Developmental Services. I want to note there are two numbers on page one of your agenda, not three, but we treat the merging of the community placement program and the community resource development program as a separate third. I say that on the record to avoid confusion. I want to provide a philosophical frame for all three of those proposals, why they're before you today, and some context. It feels necessary, given that the rhetoric that we've heard about them so far is rather vastly disappointing at both the human and individual level. Problem number one, everyone agrees that where you live should not determine whether you are eligible for Lanterman Act services. Where you live should not determine which services you can access. A lack of any objective evaluation of acuity or magnitude of needs should not leave uncertainty in how much of each service you should receive. I can talk a lot about whole person views, being person-centered, being data-informed, consistent definitions. You get it. Our two-part proposal would use the existing definitions of developmental disability and substantial disability to recommend to the legislature a proposed consistent operational solution to the front door problem. It also would recommend to the legislature a proposed consistent statewide needs evaluation of strengths and needs, not just needs, across multiple domains in a tool that is valid and reliable to be used with fidelity after evaluator certification. I think it's worth calling out that the best part of this two-part proposal is that nothing can be implemented without legislative approval. So essentially, this first proposal is the equivalent of a very important multi-year study bill. It's presented to you and the legislature because people deserve better. Problem number two. Individuals have a right to live in the least restrictive and appropriate environment. This is the core result of the Supreme Court's Olmstead decision many years ago. That decision led to California's closure of developmental centers over the past two decades. our last remaining developmental center, Porterville Developmental Center, has a different purpose than the others did, and people should not be staying there for years. We have 14 people at Porterville Developmental Center who have been there longer than 10 years, and every single one of those 14 people were civilly committed from day one. At our Canyon Springs facility, we have more long stayers, one of whom has been there for 19 years. This is unacceptable, both for those individuals and it's just morally wrong, period. Setting reasonable time limits on their residency in those locations creates pressure for our programs to do better, to develop appropriate community placements that do not currently exist, provides time to do so, and also time to adjust later, depending on how things go. And relative to mayor revision, now also includes a right of return if things don't work out in the community. because those individuals at these places also deserve better What I called problem number three is a little bit odd that it an August discussion This last proposal simply is an administrative proposal to collapse two programs into one The CPP program, the community placement program, existed to develop community homes as an alternative for people exiting developmental centers. That mission ended with the closure of those developmental centers. The community resource development program exists to develop community provider capacity in response to locally identified needs for services, placements, and innovative solutions. It's always been prioritized for, but not limited to, resources for individuals with complex needs. Very similar purposes, so I have two programs. We're asking to run one program instead of two with one set of requirements, one set of due dates for proposals, and one oversight and transparency mechanism. Does it sound like this combined proposal or even keeping those programs separate would help solve problem number two, the time limits at our other facilities? Yes, it would. But even if we decided not to help those individuals at all with the problems that I identified first, we'd still want to do this proposal. In conclusion, the community has asked for years for equal treatment at the front door and for fair access to services. Where people live should not matter. People should live in the community, not in state-run facilities. I have yet to meet someone who disagrees with that statement. No one disagrees either when government is described as a bureaucracy. Combining two programs into one is at least progress toward less bureaucracy. These proposals will not eliminate eligibility for thousands of people. They will not change anybody's services. Page 12 of the agenda, and as alluded to by the LAO in its opening remarks, contains purchase of service expenditure trends. Nothing in these proposals affects purchase of services. What they do do is ensure that people have fair access through the front door and that the IPP teams, the individual program planning teams at which the person is the center, are still the teams making decisions about what services should be provided and how much. Additionally, the only option to modernizing how we assess needs is not updating a 50-year-old tool. It may be something worth considering. We've learned a lot from it. People should ask why it's not used by very many people at all. It's analogous to, you know, if you want a new ride, you don't just look to which models you can upgrade. Sometimes it's worth looking at all the new cars on the lot, too. Assertions about these proposals, that they would do those things, is a disservice and a disrespect to the individuals and families dealing with these problems every day. Whatever the fears and concerns are about this proposal, they can be addressed in the language. We've already shown significant flexibility here and prohibited any implementation at all without eventual legislative approval. The administration is seeking partners in making the system better. We want to work with people who bring solutions to these longstanding problems. We are grateful to the many people and organizations who have reached out and sought some understanding. They've offered concrete improvements, many of which have been amended into our proposal since the May revision. These improvements include notice to legal advocates, explicitly enhanced public input. They've added significant detail to new legislative reporting requirements. and as I said a couple times now prohibited implementation of either component of the first proposal without prior legislative approval We know the legislature believes in equitable access at the front door We know that the legislature believes in providing services appropriate to individual person needs and believes in maximizing the information available to IPP planning teams that actually decide the services and how much should be provided. We know the legislature believes that individuals should live in the community. We know the legislature wants to minimize bureaucracy and to improve everything we do through public input. So today, very simply, we are asking the legislature to prove those things again by approving all three of these proposals after engaging with the administration and after public input, much of which you will hear today, to make these proposals even better. Thank you for hearing me out because people deserve better.

All right. You may begin. Okay. Hello. Good afternoon, Dr. Jackson. Michi Gates, Chief Deputy Director at the Department of Developmental Services. Thank you for listening to us today. I'll go over a brief summary of the proposal again, even though LAO did a very good job with that. But just because there has been some confusion, again, there are two parts to this proposal. The first creates one way for regional centers to assess applicants for eligibility. It does not change the current definitions in law of developmental and substantial disability. The second part is separate from that intake assessment process and focuses on how to improve regional centers method for evaluating the needs of people once they are being served by the regional center after they have been found eligible. Both proposals, as has been stated many times, require robust community input and the approval of the legislature. So we would only be coming with proposals that would require that approval. The proposal would make it easier for people who are applying to regional centers to understand how eligibility decisions are made. Secondly, it would provide a meaningful way to evaluate strengths and needs of people who are in the regional center system. This evaluation would strengthen how well people's needs are met and achievement of desired outcomes by providing information to planning teams about a person's needs. It does not in any way replace the planning team or the person-centered process. People need to be able to understand how the system works and feel empowered to fully participate in decision-making as intended under the Lanterman Act. People need a system that supports them to achieve their desired outcomes, and they need data that can improve the system over time. These proposals do not create risk for people with developmental disabilities, as any changes would require robust community input partnership and legislative approval The proposals are designed to improve supports and services to people who are applying to and being supported by regional centers. They create meaningful and transparent processes for important decisions about eligibility and the supports and services a person receives. With respect to intake and substantial disability, today every regional center determines substantial disability differently. This proposal does not change the definition of substantial disability. It proposes to create a valid, reliable, and consistent way to assess it. The proposed needs evaluation would not be used to determine substantial disability. These are two entirely different processes. Regarding current work on standardizing the intake process under SB 138. The department has been meeting with many stakeholders to identify what is working, what isn't, and how to make those things better. As a result, the department believes that simply addressing the steps in the process will not improve the experience when a major concern is how eligibility is assessed. Standardizing only the process does not address the core issue of not understanding how an eligibility decision was made. In closing, again, the department is open to ideas about how to further strengthen the consultation and legislative review processes in the trailer bill language. Thank you.

Thank you Now we have Dr Harrington Yes All right you may begin Good afternoon I Charlene Harrington I a professor emerita at the University of California San Francisco and I have conducted research studies of the DDS program using the CEDAR assessment data

Next up. Good afternoon.

Thank you. I just going to ask Ms Hahn and Dr Harrington if you can give your seats up to Mr Gomez and Mr Ciampa Ciampa Come on up. Mr. Gomez, come on up. And we'll start off with Mr. Gomez.

All right. All right, audience. That's strike one. Relax. We got to get through all this or we're going to be here for a very long time. And y'all are last for public comment, by the way. So you remember that next time you want to clap. All right, next up. Thank you, Dr. Jackson, member of the committee

Thank you very much. So we'll ask you two to allow two others to come up from our regional center folks. Please come on up. And Orange County, you may begin first.

So you're going to start wrapping up? You're not going to be able to finish all those pages?

So you can close out in the most important part that hasn't already been said.

and timeliness of the service system, the delivery system. Thank you, Ms. Wesley. Wesley.

clarity about how decisions are arrived at, we leave room for people to misinterpret or misjudge our intentions and the thought process behind decisions. Systematically documented strengths and needs don't undermine, but rather are the foundation of a strong individualized planning process. Today, the CDER is used in a variety of ways, ranging from a simple administrative activity in some places that is disconnected from individual planning to, as Mr. Landauer said right before me, a jumping off point for service considerations based on those with similar profiles of needs. As Ms. Bagley stated, on a broader systems level, good information about needs, including those needs we struggle to meet, drive our understanding of the services we need more of and the gaps that exist today. Quality data fuels more strategic development and innovation, and today we lack the data sensitivity to really inform a lot of those decisions. More sensitive information about individual and overall strengths and needs would support this work. As Mr. Landauer said, while operating quietly in the background, reliable data about the support needs of those we serve that is accurately reflected in their individual plans, which are then tied to regional centers purchases, generates billions of federal dollars to make possible our entitlement. And it's the only entitlement in the nation. And it's possible only because of the federal dollars we draw down. They all have the same responsibility to our joint community. Reliable individual and systematic information about the strengths and needs of those served by regional centers is of unquestionable value. What lies ahead are decisions about how we all best get there together. Thank you. Thank you. Department of Finance.

So this is because we have a very large panel. We're going to do it this way. I'm going to ask that we please hit that button that we usually use for public comment. I'm going to ask a few questions, and then any panelists who are back in the audience, please use the mic right there if you would like to participate in that question. Okay? Number one, let me just say this. We were asked by leadership to spend more time on this issue, and I think it was appropriate because ensuring that we uphold the fidelity of fair process is also important. And for those that really don't understand the concept of fair process, all it basically says is that it's important for people to feel that the process that was used was fair to everybody so that no matter what the outcome of the process is, they trust the outcome because the process was fair. Everyone following me? And so that's what we are committed to doing, to making sure. And to be quite honest, the Assembly does not believe any proposal given to us in the May revise is a fair process. And so we want to make sure that this is done correctly because if the end users and the clients themselves do not believe that it was a fair process, they are going to not believe or trust or accept the outcome of whatever ends up being after the assessment tool is used. Okay? So, first I want to say that. Number two is, let's first deal with Cedar. Cedar was originally created 50 years ago. Is that correct?

Okay. When was the last time Cedar updated?

2015.

So, comprehensively, CEDAR has not been updated and research-based and validated. Okay? This is what's important, and I need everyone to follow me here, is that the only acceptable tool to use is one that is research-based validated. Nobody can just add things to it and change it and say yes this feels good Okay everyone following me here So that means that if the entire tool has not been validated for 50 years that is not a good tool. There's a whole lot of language that has changed. There's a whole lot of philosophies that has changed over time. There's a whole lot of research that has been conducted over the last 50 years. So we need to make sure that we are using a tool that will make sure that, number one, it is validated appropriately. And number two, it is updated based upon today's most recent research and published literature. Okay? Now, the next question that leads us to this is how many possible other tools are available to us to look into that would help us deal with this issue? Because, number one, the fact that it hasn't been updated in 50 years is a problem. and shame on us. Okay. Number two, I see you. And then number two is what alternatives are available to us that the community can then look at and engage in and the end users can give feedback in as well, including feedback from clients and everyone involved. Do we know how many other tools that may be available to us? And if so, how many? So just at a high level, I would

Okay. Comment, and then we'll come over. Yes.

Hold on, hold on. I'm going to keep in control of this, baby. All right, relax. Relax. Everybody breathe. Thank you for that. Let me go to the next one right behind you.

So it seems to me, and I'll get to you there, is that, number one, we have a number of options. We can look at the various tools that are out there. We might need to do a new homegrown tool possibly is another option or a mixture of them but a properly validated once we understand what that mixture is Am I correct in that That correct There could be combinations of different types of

mean that we intend to do away with the IPP? No, not at all. Okay. That's what I need people to hear. And one last thing. Oh, I run this show. If I may. Nope. It'll be helpful. This is what's important because I understand how important the IPP is. And so I need everyone to hear that. In no way are we considering a replacement of IPP. We're only talking about CDER, which is already done in conjunction with the IPP. Am I correct in that?

Correct?

And I want to underscore one more point. It also is not going to determine services. The decision is with the team. The IPP makes the decisions about the service. But the evaluation should be what helps teams ask the right questions to make informed decisions in their planning process. And I just would thank you for the time to underscore that piece. Absolutely. Now, one more thing I just need for my understanding, and that is, and what we have to understand is fidelity matters. It actually doesn't matter what tool we're using. If it's not done with fidelity. And in order to make sure that your level of service is not dependent on your location, the only way to do that is to ensure that the tools and evaluations that are used are done with fidelity no matter who is doing it. And that they're properly trained to do so. So I am not concerned about one regional center doing it. What I'm concerned about is all the regional centers are not doing it correctly and with its proper fidelity. And it seems like that is something everyone knows and accepts. So we've got to fix that problem as well. Okay. Regional center, you have some comments and then we'll come back there and then we'll get to the director.

Vivian?

Okay. Thank you. Director, and then we'll come back down here.

Absolutely. Thank you once again. This conversation is very personal to me. What's been discussed

Thank you. Absolutely. Eric Champ with UCP.

Because you mentioned this. This is really about building trust first and then a good tool second that's validated. I agree with all those concerns. And that's something that because of the circumstances, especially at the federal level, which is not the fault of the department, it raises anxieties. And so folks want tools that enable that empower human decision makers but don determine eligibility or don determine a score With AI and the state of technology everybody wants more tools but nobody wants those tools to tell you how to live your life And so just reinforcing that and as I see folks nodding their head I assuming there agreement on that, but we just don't know where we stand on those issues. And I think that's some of the concerns today. Thanks. So what we want to do is this, because also I think how this language within the trailer bill is written is also important so that there is not miscommunication or misunderstanding on what we're trying to do as well, which is why it's going to be important for us to really pay attention to language so people understand what the process or framework of what the process would look like moving forward so that people know possibly what to expect. And so I think that's what the challenge is that we're going to have to work through. Hopefully we can get there. And we will be engaged as much as we need to, to ensure that we are able to get there. And then also it won't be, and also making sure that we have proper feedback from those, from advocates as well. Doctor, did you have any comments you wanted to make on this item? Yeah, you're the lucky one. So I think that, number one, I think this was a very great discussion. Concerns have been heard. Also, I hope that everyone in the room also has some clarification as well on what we're trying to achieve. And most importantly, I need everyone to hear that it is our intention to have a fair process. Okay? This decision is a start of a fair process. It is not the end. Right? So at the end of the day, there's no decision to make yet until proper discussions, input, and research has been done to ensure that we are making the best decision possible that will ensure that individualized, timely, and effective services are given to the client. At the end of the day, that's what we want. And the only way to do that is to make sure also, because it's also important that the legislature and the administration believes in the process as well because at the end of the day, it's also going to determine what type of budgetary allocations are going to be necessary to ensure that people are getting the services that they need at the individualized and an individualized way. Okay? Okay and the last thing I will say and then of course we never leave this room until we hear from the people on the ground and people most affected So you will have I hope you been practicing your two minutes by the way so that we can make sure that everyone is involved in the process Okay. Any other questions or comments from the panel?

Okay, thank you all very much. We'll go on to issue number two. And after issue number two, we will have public comment.

Hey, Will.

is properly seated. Obviously, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, five. Who else does not have a seat that's supposed to be on? Okay, so we're going to go in the order of the agenda. Okay, so one, two, three, four, the first five on the agenda should be the one sitting here right now. Okay. All right. We didn't play hot potato, right? We're good. Okay. All right. So issue number two, which is really two issues into one. Understand that. I get it. All right. So now let's go with Ms. Bagley.

All right. So I'm going to open specific.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Also, specify that CRDP funds are eligible for new mental health programs. Next, strengthen oversight. Ensure DDS has aggregated data for each center to carry out its oversight authority. and last, improve backstops. Make it explicit that health and safety waivers can be used if needed to authorize service and supports. With these changes, the state can meet these deadlines responsibly, protecting both the people transitioning and the communities they return to. Thank you. Dr. Jackson, members, good afternoon. Will Niner with Disability Rights California. The proposals in front of us reflect a longstanding principle in our state. Disabled people should get the same opportunities as everybody else to live a life in their community. This promise runs through our Nanterman Act, and it also lies at the heart of the Supreme Court's Homestead decision. And at a time when the federal government is attempting to sharply limit Homestead's reach, The administration's commitment to these principles is as important as ever. I also want to briefly talk about the conditions that some of our clients experience in these facilities as context to underscore our support of this proposal. There is chronic use of physical and mechanical restraints at Porterville and Canyon Springs. And at Porterville, where a mechanical restraint can mean strapping somebody to a bed for an average of 90 minutes, that's not okay. This is an average. It's not a maximum. And while we acknowledge that restraint can sometimes be used in emergency circumstances, they are not therapeutic for our clients. They do not help prepare them for the community. They're traumatic for them. We have clients that would tell us I wish I would rather be in jail than at Porterville So we support these proposals But at the same time right our support doesn mean we believe that transitions can just happen without safeguards and we know that poorly planned or unsupported transitions, that can also cause harm. So that's why we have consistently insisted on individualized assessments, thoughtful transition planning, appropriate community resources and a meaningful safety net if things go wrong. So to that end, I want to acknowledge what Ms. Bagley talked about. The proposals, they've improved significantly since May. They now require an implementation plan. You know, DDS, show your work, right? They require legislative updates. They prioritize resource development for this population. And Ms. Bagley talked about the one-year right of return, that safety net, the what if it doesn't work out for this person. What do we do then? People can go back. We do think that there are a few modest but important changes that would make the proposals stronger. We support the targeted changes that state council discussed that would strengthen transition planning and resource development. We also support some of the changes I believe Ms. Reguler will describe that will strengthen the role of public defenders to participate in people's transition planning meetings. And we know that resource development requires investment. But let's talk about the status quo. It costs roughly $1 million per person per year for a person to remain at Porterville. Canyon Springs isn't that far behind. This isn't cost effective, and it's not unharmed either. We believe these proposals offer a responsible path forward. We support them. We urge the committee to do the same. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Stephanie Regular, and I'm here on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. First, I'd like to thank the committee, the Department of Developmental Services, and Disability Rights for working with CPDA over the past several weeks. We appreciate the amendments that have been made, and we support DDS's proposals. Specifically, we support reducing the over-reliance on locked institutions like Porterville and Canyon Springs, because too often they have become the destination rather than the step toward returning to the community. These facilities are typically hundreds of miles away from the person's home and, importantly, their families. These facilities usually are not the least restrictive settings, and they disproportionately house people of color. Our state has made significant progress in diversion, community-based treatment, and civil court options for people with serious mental illness. but we have paid less attention to people with developmental disabilities than criminal systems. Many of these clients are first identified as having a developmental disability in criminal courts instead of through the systems that could have prevented them from ending up in prisons, jails, and institutions like Porterville in the first place. Most have never received services they should have received through their regional centers before ending up in a place like Porterville. I've represented clients charged with very serious offenses, where it seemed impossible that they could ever succeed in the community. But once they finally received the right treatment, behavioral supports, housing, and specialized services, they didn't just stop cycling through the criminal system. They actually built stable lives. This is just one of the reasons why we support DDS's proposal. We also appreciate the amendments requiring increased notice to the court and counsel, written discharge plans in quarterly reports, on community-based infrastructure and implementation. These changes are key to making sure that people are not transitioned from Porterville or Canyon Springs before they're ready and that community supports are in place when they are. I would also encourage DDS to think beyond conservatorships as it looks towards reform. Individuals committed under Penal Code Section 1371 are often placed in these high-security facilities even when they are charged with nonviolent felonies and misdemeanors. And as California moves away from institutional care, I hope DDS will also consider whether these individuals could receive treatment and support in less restrictive community settings much earlier. It would certainly help with the transition if they're placed on the 6500 thereafter. Finally, as Mr. Leiner alluded to, there is one remaining amendment we ask this committee to adopt. We ask that attorneys of record receive notice of and an opportunity to participate in individual program plan or IPP meetings. Public defenders bring a perspective that no one else at the table has. We know our clients. We understand the court orders governing their commitments. And we often know what legal or practical barriers could affect a successful transition. including defense counsel and IPP meetings will help identify those issues early and make these transitions smoother for everyone involved. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Dr. Jackson and members of the committee. Thank you for having me and encouraging a candid discussion today. My name is Taryn Hunter, and I'm honored to serve as Chief Deputy District Attorney of the Napa County District Attorney's Office and represent the California District Attorneys Association. For a little added context, I'm also the mother of former regional center patients. But as a prosecutor who's handled these cases, the real life and practical concern I want to share with the committee is that limiting the stay for all patients to 24 months in Porterville or Canyon Springs may not adequately protect the public. I certainly appreciate the sentiment and laws which value treating and housing those with disabilities in the least restrictive setting when appropriate. But placing what appears to be an arbitrary 24-month limit across the board does not acknowledge the unfortunate truth that some of these offenders and patients will continue to threaten public safety after the arbitrary 24 months. Based on the latest numbers provided, overcrowding does not appear to be an issue at Porterville or Canyon Springs. Both facilities have the capacity to treat their patients and more. Current residents at Canyon Springs, as we heard, have an average stay of four years, ranging from eight days to 19 years, making just the average stay double the proposed cap of two years. Porterville similarly appears to be flushed with available beds with residents averaging a five and a half year stay up to 26 years The average stay being more than double the new time limit proposed Yes some individuals may remain in restrictive settings for extended periods. But the real world actuality that I hope that the chair and the committee do not forget is that some of these offenders require this kind of supervision. Sadly, 24 months may not make, say, a disabled child molester an appropriate candidate for lease into the community. That's just one example I pulled from my own county. No matter how extreme the level of violence, how poor treatment is going, or what complex needs or other mental health or behavioral issues a patient faces, under the proposed policy change, an offender must be moved into another community setting far below the current average stay. That's a big change and one that does not appear to be justified by the data. I want to remind the committee that there is already a process for extended stays. These commitments under Welfare Institution Code 6500 are reviewed annually by the court. That is a legal requirement. And this review mandates an assessment and recommendation from the treatment providers. As a district attorney, I don't decide who stays. I don't decide who's ready for release. That's not up to me. Each case is individually analyzed by an expert and placement is only extended when necessary. And as we can see from the numbers, the majority of patients are under recommendations for stays far exceeding two years. One of the purposes of 6500 is protect public safety, and that requires a case-by-case analysis. Moreover, we know that many of the people served do not only have a qualifying development, but also, as I mentioned, a range of complex needs. The patients who have been there for 5, 10, 25 years, who are they? Why did an expert recommend they remain committed? Are they continuing to display violence even in that restrictive setting? I encourage the committee to review these specific cases, look into the real reasons that these longer-term offenders had these extended stays, and read the court reports recommending that they do not leave. In closing, if I can better understand the tangible issues that need to be solved, I would be happy to be included in any ongoing discussion and could help identify case examples or applicable data for the committee and the community. However, based on what has been presented thus far, I urge the committee to reject the relevant proposed changes and allow the current flexibility for a range of stays at these facilities, some being much less than two years. But I think to disregard the reasons that some of these folks are there for significantly longer would be short-sighted. Thank you again for your time, your consideration, and for welcoming a discussion that also includes public safety.

Good afternoon. My name is Jay Culvert, and I'm the CEO for Strategies to Empower Think People. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm not an expert on trailer bill language or legislative processes. I'm an expert on people and services.

Sorry?

I agree. Every day I have the honor of working alongside individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including many who have transitioned from the state's most restrictive institutions. California made an extraordinary commitment to ensuring people with developmental disabilities have the opportunity to live in their community. That commitment started with the Lanterman Act and continues due to the closure of the developmental centers. But our work is not finished simply because we closed a single facility. Our responsibility is fulfilled only when every person has the opportunity to live with the right supports in their community. We also need to acknowledge the difficult reality that many of these individuals who remain at Porterville are among the most behaviorally complex people in the state On paper the records describe crimes such as arson robbery assaults, drug offenses, and sexual offenses. What those records often don't tell us is there's traumas behind those offenses. Often these individuals were manipulated and exploited by gangs, used as drug couriers, and victimized through abuse and sex trafficking themselves. They have intellectual and developmental disabilities and many effectively spent decades behind bars. Had they been born nor typical, they would have completed their sentences long ago. Too often we start conversations based on fear. Fear is understandable, but fear itself should not drive public policy. Instead, I want to introduce you to two real people. This is Jerome. Jerome transitioned out of Porterville's institution and built a successful life, worked part-time as a landscaper, and married the love of his life. Their marriage was officiated by then-Senator Holly Mitchell. I also want to introduce you to Carl. Carl is a statewide advocate. He helped develop the Master Plan for Developmental Services. He advocates for supported decision-making. He leads a local marching band, enjoys socializing, seeing his sister, and playing darts. They are not case files. They are real people. We have decades of experience transitioning folks out of these locked facilities. We've learned a lot of things on the way. Success requires that we invest in experienced providers. We create thoughtful transition plans. We provide specialized housing with modifications as needed, but most importantly, that we have a responsive safety net. When a person's first placement is not successful, they may need to return to a more secure setting before trying again. This should not be viewed as failure, but rather as part of the process. It is actual responsible treatment planning. Those decisions must be made quickly by the treatment team and supported by the department to protect both the individual and the community from which their long-term success depends. Finally, this is not only the right thing to do, it's a morally right thing to do. It's fiscally responsible. California currently spends over $1 million for each person in these locked facilities. For many individuals, comprehensive community-based services provide better or equal outcomes with something no institution can offer, an opportunity to build a meaningful life like Carl and Jerome. I apologize for my stuttering. Good afternoon. Again, Amy Wessling from ARCA. Today I'm going to, on this topic, talk from my personal experience transitioning individuals from state-operated facilities to a variety of community settings, including residential support models developed with a particular individual explicitly in mind. Here's a few things I've learned along the way. First, we have an obligation to the individual to provide them a better life post-transition than they had in the institution. Change, even positive, is hard in real time, but in time, the person's day-to-day life has to improve. We can't just move them for the sake of moving them. Second, the development of needed resources, particularly those that require the acquisition of property, it takes a long time to do it right. From the approval of the plan to the time the facility is ready to open takes two years. conceptualizing and defining new service models takes even longer in the ag news developmental center closure we figured out we needed models to support those with medical frailties and so we set up our cushions in other dc closures we set up enhanced behavioral supports homes and community crisis homes The population that we probably have the greatest difficulty supporting today are those whose needs arise primarily from their psychiatric conditions, which overlay their developmental disability. So if we are to develop new models and we then have to develop the homes to support these individuals. The 2029 timeline for the current residents of Canyon Springs to exit is challenging to meet. Third, transitions, particularly for those who have been in the same setting for a long time, need to be planned and executed individually, and we have to be responsive to their needs and comfort levels. Fourth, as my colleague said a moment ago, sometimes despite the most careful planning things don't work out the way we anticipate and someone might need to return in order to give the team time to recalibrate and rethink steps before moving ahead. Transitions are nonlinear and that comes with the territory when supporting people in general and specifically those with complex service needs. And while it's important to think back to developmental center closures, this is a little bit different for a couple of reasons. Number one, before the Kauffelt settlement, which led to the round of developmental center closures, about four to five percent of individuals served by regional centers lived in developmental centers, and they weren't necessarily the most complex population because many of them had lived there before regional centers were ever envisioned. So we had models in many cases that could meet their needs. Today, less than one-tenth of one percent of individuals live in state-operated services, and they are by definition the most complex people that we are serving today because of their legal complexities and their clinical presentation. Second, the developmental center closures involved a static population. We knew we were starting with this group of people, and we could plan from there. This proposal is a little bit different in that we need to invest in not only the resources to meet the needs of the population today, but it needs to be an ongoing investment to ensure adequate capacity because we will continue to see people who need to transition. It's not a static population. In closing, no one wants to see people linger in state-operated facilities. It's not in anyone's best interest, but policy decisions must support their successful return to the community. And that will hinge on adequate capacity, careful transitions, and meeting timelines in and of itself is not the goal, but rather is the indicator that we have the right systems and supports in place to meet the needs of an increasingly wide range of individuals. Thank you.

Karina Hendren, LAO. No comments.

engage in a thoughtful implementation process and development process We do have an existing development pipeline with CPP and CRDP And I would also name that 50 about 57%, 58% of the individuals currently at Porterville under 6,500. And I do want to make the distinction, right, between the 1370s and the 6,500s because...

No, it's okay. So the 1370s, that's a penal code commitment where people come in the front door to Porterville because they've been found incompetent. They come for restoration. After two years, it's determined fork in the road. Are you competent? Yes. Then it's a local determination on whether that person faces their charges or not, and they would go through that process. Or no, not competent, unrestored, unrestorable. And then they would become they'd either be planned to discharge back home with family back into the community or they can become civilly committed to a sixty five hundred danger to self or others. And so we're really talking about that population where they kind of get stuck there with a lot of kind of stigma. And that those individuals have not been committed. I mean, convicted. Right. Of any sort of they've been they've been charged.

they go two years at the 1370, two years at the 6500 is what we're proposing. The 1370 penal code, that is what it is. We're not proposing to touch that in any way. But then our proposal addresses two years at the 6500, but it would also be another two years at Canyon Springs. So there There would be potentially that six years in a locked facility, which gives us a continuum and six years to actually develop the resources tailored to that person while we also engage in the bigger systemic development, which we do currently have that development pipeline. And I don't know if you want to speak to the CPP. Yeah, I just wanted to add on the development pieces and like capacity and what are we ready for right in the community. That happens right now. That happens. It's currently happening. It happens every year. Regional centers every year are required and responsible for proposing projects, right? Homes, whether it's homes for folks at Porterville, Canyon Springs, institutions for mental diseases, restrictive settings, right, that are otherwise not in the community. We have a pipeline of those homes that are currently being built, and that is the then supportive, you know, push in one way that we're giving the regional centers that you've had a person there for 19 years who over year after year has been, you know, reporting that they are, they're, they're stable. They're ready to go. Like there's, where's their next transition from this locked setting? And so it's like plan for that because as Amy Westling said, development takes time. It doesn't happen overnight. So, so why can't we do that right now? Someone's in there. Let's, let's just take this

I think it that kind of thought process of they been there they been safe and they kind of get stuck So it like no you need to But who makes the decision Why are they stuck That what I trying to understand So as referenced earlier there is an annual commitment process So the physicians certify that somebody remains a danger to themselves or others, and then that is brought before the courts, and they recertify that 6,500. So that's an annual process. And I think what we are –

Right.

Let me just finish.

Okay.

So I would just lift up that there is the certification of dangerous to self or others, but there's also the IDT team or the interdisciplinary team and then the court.

Correct.

And then you might have somebody else who says they are ready.

And then the judge has determined in that case that they should still remain there.

I mean, I'm just trying to because unless you're saying the process is unfair or unjust.

We feel that there are stigmas that drive a lot of the decision-making.

And there are multiple people that are representing the positions in decision-making for that individual.

Correct, which is the responsibility then of the judge.

Well, that's a whole different subject than what we're talking about.

They're not safe to come out. They've been in this.

They need to stay.

Right. I understand that argument.

Yeah. Thank you, Dr. Jackson. So one point about...

experience and the clients we serve, what we see happen is that for years, people say, you're dangerous. You're not ready. You're dangerous. You're not ready. These are the recommendations that go before the court, right? And then all of a sudden, community capacity comes online, and it's like, wow, there's a place for you. Oh, this person's not dangerous anymore, right? This person can live somewhere else. So I want to make it seem like a chicken and egg thing, but the fact that there's been a finding of dangerous doesn't necessarily mean the person is dangerous. Where we see time and time happen again is that there's not a place that's identified for them to go. Their record gets stacked with finding after finding of dangerousness and stigma. year after year, which actually then makes it harder to place them, but then something comes online based on individualized assessment that meets their support needs, all the things that Jake talked about, and then they leave. So I just want to pay a critical eye to kind of the

I think I just wanted to reply to and kind of build off of what Mr. Liner said. When I was doing this work directly, he's absolutely right that, you know, when presented with an option of either we have nothing for this person or they return to a secure facility and it's somebody with fairly complex needs, the court tends to default to returning them to the secure facility. So, you know, because part of the conversation is around do we have a place for this person to go? Do we have a plan to mitigate the risk? And that was sort of the point I was trying to raise in terms of, you know, making sure that not just for those individuals at Porterville, but also for those at Canyon, that we have the array of services that we need. And we've used other opportunities, the closure of developmental centers, to build up those service models for people with medical frailties, for people with complex behavioral challenges, which actually have prevented future people from going into locked facilities in the first place. So I think the point is, you know, part of this is looking at what are we still missing in that continuum? And do we have the opportunity to fill in additional gaps, not only for the people who are currently at Canyon or currently at Porterville, but you know who may find themselves in situations that would have landed them at one of those facilities in the future And if we also focus on building those community supports now there could be people in the facilities now that could be let out now without even waiting for that

No, that's happening now. I mean, people are transitioning now from Canyon Springs, from Porterville into homes that have been planned the last two, three years with supports, with crisis services, with mental health supports, with rap teams that's already been in development. And already, you know, we've got probably three or four individuals, I think, within the next six months from either Canyon Springs or Porterville that have been planned for and are ready to then transition into their homes. So there is a current pipeline now and then what will need to come obviously is that array our safety net continuum which we have been building since 2017 which includes a variety of different models and things that we are still working on with our community with our regional center partners and what else do we need in order to have this robust safety net which includes our complex needs residential program that was you know, approved and enacted in 2023 with our last safety net plan that was a step down or an option too when our Canyon Springs Sister Desert Star program closed. That was the concern then. What happens when we no longer have this acute crisis? What are we going to build? So that is now in development being built and will be yet another option potentially for some of these individuals that would be needing some, you know, higher level of care or restrictive setting that may be necessary.

I do. We have, see, wait, right now, this is the wild, wild west, and you're not being aggressive enough. And so I need you to give me a nod. I need you to give me a side eye. I need you to do something to let me know that you've got something to say. Chair Jackson, you might be one of the first people who have ever said that to me. I have been told by many a judge I do not have a good poker face, And I can see that one of your committee members has so kindly picked up on that. But all joking aside, I do appreciate you giving me some time to speak. And I think a lot of things that are being discussed are great. Having these other options, having more support in the community. Fantastic. But your honor, not your honor. Chair Jackson, your honor to me in this setting. I think you hit the nail on the head when you asked about isn't there a process? There is an annual review for some of these folks. Under the current law, you will continue to see individuals when appropriate to be released. And I'm so great. I've learned a lot today to learn about all of these programming and advocates in the community that can help these folks. That's fantastic. And you'll keep seeing that. But I'm talking about the individuals, and I'm not talking about stigma. I'm talking about common sense. the individuals who every year or on some years, right, some people might have this finding once and not again but are having a determination by experts by treatment providers that they are dangerous and a court agreeing with that and being released Porterville, to my knowledge, is the only secure facility of this kind. And by putting this 24-month arbitrary time, what I think is an arbitrary time limit, unless I'm misunderstanding, is going to – I think it's going to put some individuals in a bad position. There might be some unintended consequences. I don't think in unintended consequences. That's why I'm here today telling you what's going to happen is some of these individuals, not low-level vandals or petty theft cases. Those are not the folks we're talking about because they wouldn't be there under this law in the first place. It's the violent offenders. It's the murderers. It's the kidnappers. It's the child molesters who are found to be dangerous, who then, after 24 months, would be released. And I'm not saying that to scare anyone. I'm saying that just to be practical. And I know I'm only talking about a subset of folks. And, you know, I actually agree with a lot of what Ms. Regular from the Public Defenders Association said. We might be different advocates, but there are parts and aspects of this law that I understand her position. I understand why the committee might make some changes. I'm just urging this group, the legislatures here and everybody, to be very thoughtful about why is it that we need this 24-month cap. It's not an overcrowding issue. I understand it costs money, as everything does. But when the average stay is already longer than this, that's a lot of folks that have not been assessed. Last comment I want to believe, I believe Ms. Bagley and Mr. I'm going to pronounce it wrong. Cruthers might have mentioned was the data about folks who have been released, how it's been going well for some of those folks. That's great. But those aren't the folks that had a finding of dangerousness. Right. Those are the folks that were not to did not have a analysis, did not have a report saying from the actual treatment providers, these folks are dangerous, do not release them. It went well for those folks. And that's fantastic. I'm talking about the other individuals who are not meeting the standards under the report that I discussed. So I understand. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think that we're just trying to get to the problem we're trying to solve. How do we avoid any unintended consequences? as we do the policy, it's the preference of this committee and, quite frankly, the leadership of this House to ensure that we are also authorizing the proper supports that should come with the policy, right, so that we can make sure that everybody is being set up for success. I think that's what we're really trying to make sure that we do. How do we make sure that we're totally set up for success? And as you know, and the reason why we're slowing this down this way is because there are decisions that this committee has made three years ago. that I have totally forgotten about. And I don't know when I'll even remember to bring up the issue again. And that's just, I ain't that old, but I'm human. And because we know how this place works, with an issue like this, that's why we usually even build in certain check-in timelines, certain times in which we have to come back and reauthorize things. It's just so that we can make sure that we account for the human experience. See what I'm saying? Yeah. And so, and sometimes it is, and literally this is what the case is, is the fear of the unknown. And how do we work through this? Because I do understand, and what I'm hearing is, is that the process that's currently happened, even though the last decision is being made by the judge, that there is still something unjust about the process and how we have set up the process, right? And I'm willing to entertain that. I'm just trying to figure out, well, then what is the fix in a way? And I understand what the beginning of the fix is, what seems to be the timeline to force people to make decisions. I'm just trying to make sure that we are taking all of these things into account and we are backing it up, not with a promise, but some resources or whatever you deem is going to be necessary to make sure that everyone's being successful. That's kind of where I'm trying to go here. But is there anything else you wanted to add?

That's fine, and then we'll go to the director right behind you. Thank you. I really appreciate it. I'm not sure if you see him, but he's behind you. Okay. Yes.

And that's what I'm trying to get at, though. I'm going to let you finish, but I don't want to gloss over that. Is that if there's other issues, why there's people who are staying there, and it's not because they're dangerous, why are they still there? And how do we make sure that that doesn't happen in the future? and I think it's more than just a timeline. It seems like there's something wrong there where there's nowhere for them to go or can you tell me why they are still, that they are there but they are not in a danger to anyone?

Go ahead.

Sure.

Regular? Ms. Regular, can you make sure that you share a letter you were talking about? Okay, just make sure you share that with us, okay? Director.

Thank you for that.

Don't be repeating my stuff.

Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions or comments at this time?

Any additional questions or comments? Doctor, are you good?

Okay, go for it.

Yeah, so I'm happy to start and pass off to anybody else. So this is two different potentially clinical milieus, right? Transition planning is individual on each person's needs and their kind of clinical needs and therapeutic needs. So it is not likely, right, for I'm going to use a hypothetical. It is not appropriate for us to take, say, an individual who happens to be on the spectrum and potentially more vulnerable and maybe clinical compatibility wouldn't then say, let's bring in somebody with a history, like a 290 registrant with somebody who's that vulnerable. So there's like matching and clinical kind of milieu that has to be considered. And that is the IPP process. That's the transition process that takes place while people are at Porterville or Canyon Springs. And so we understand the question, but we develop for both, right, individuals not involved in forensic capacity and those that are forensically involved. And so we don't see it as an either or. We see it as there's a continuous development process. And in terms of staffing specifically, to your question, the department has engaged in a variety of initiatives around supporting and expanding our direct support professionals. And really, it's really at the provider level. At the same time, the department has tried to create pathways to support. direct professional workforce. And I would just add and appreciate the question that I think one of the things that regional centers are wrestling with is, is there a model that we don't yet have. And does the proposal specific to Canyon give us a long enough runway to develop the model, build the standards around it, and then develop the facilities that will implement the model? Our experience tells us that when we did the medical model, when we did the behavioral model, it took us longer than that timeline appears to include for the current residents of Canyon. And so that's really the outstanding question for us. When we look at people who have not been well served by our existing services, one of the common themes is that their predominant issues many times arise from their psychiatric disorder that they have in conjunction with their intellectual or developmental disability. And our behavioral support models aren't necessarily the right fit for that. So our question isn't really a philosophical one. It's more about is there enough runway there in that first timeline that will come up for the canyon movers. And that's really the concern that we have related to that question. If I could, you know, we've been working with the state for the last couple years on enhanced supported living.

So just listening in, and Amy, when you were talking about just the process itself, that's taken me to one of the questions towards the end of it about the administration being amenable to formalizing the transition preparedness plan. because it sounds like you're now getting into that as well. So the preparedness plan and accountability report and creating an annual date for this to be submitted should the state-operated facilities proposals move forward. So can someone talk a little bit further about that? Because it sounds like that's where that connection was going,

I want to thank everyone. Great discussion. I'm glad we got the viewpoints of everyone who's involved. I'm glad we included our criminal justice partners as well to making sure their voices are being heard. And so we will take all this information and we will figure out what our path, our next steps are going to be. So thank you very much for this panel. And we will just start going into public comment at this time. Thank you all very, very much. We're going to go row by row so we can make it very smooth. Oh, they have a plan. I hope you practiced your two minutes. I'm just going to go row by row. Were you sitting here? No, I wasn't. I was just thinking there wasn't. So what we're going to do, I'm going to need everyone to keep it quiet. Follow the directions of the sergeants, please. The sergeants will let you know when to come up, when to stand up, and to come and stand in line. Thank you. Name and affiliation, and you have two minutes. I'm Gio, and what do you say? Okay. Just a minute. They just want to make sure that they can hear you, okay? Okay. All right. Just get a little close to it. Like this? You're good. Go ahead. Good afternoon. My name is Trevani Romero. I'm 18 years old, and I'm here as a self-advocate and as someone who depends on regional center services. Because my evaluations were done properly, I received early intervention services that changed my life. But getting those services has not been easy. My mother often has to drive up to an hour so I can access the support I need. I'm about to start college, and we've had to make more than 10 trips to complete everything required. Thanks to these services, I've been able to keep moving forward, but I worry about what could happen if these supports become harder to access. I respectfully ask you to oppose the proposed changes to the DDS evaluation tool and cost-effectiveness rules. These changes could hurt people like me who rely on these services to live with dignity and reach our full potential Thank you for your time and consideration Thank you Next name and affiliation please Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Mariana Guerrero, and I'm an advocate, a sibling, and a provider for individuals with developmental disabilities. I respectfully urge you to oppose any assessment tool that has not been thoroughly researched, validated, and proven accurately reflect lifelong support needs of individuals with developmental disabilities. Based on my experience, tools like this can create fear and anxiety. Individuals begin to worry that they must prove that they are disabled enough to keep the services that allow them to live independently, work, attend college, and participate in their communities. No one should have to live that fear. As an advocate, I have seen lives transformed because of the regional center services. As a sibling, I know these supports give families hope and stability. As a provider, I have seen firsthand that progress is possible because the right services are placed, not because they are no longer needed. Please do not allow any approving assessment tool to determine someone's future. Decisions that affect people's life must be based on sound research, transparency, and the voices of the disability community. Protect the services that protect our community. Thank you. And I also have some letters from 20 families that actually feel the same way. You can leave it with the sergeants, please. Thank you very much. Next, name and affiliation, please. Yes, good afternoon. My name is Maribel Ahumada. I am affiliated to the ICC. I'm a co-founder. Probably to say that we work with many families across the 2NE1 regional centers. But more importantly, I'm also a mother of triplets and one with multiple medical and intellectual disabilities. Then to the services that he had through the years, even though he was rejected out of the regional center or kicked out of the regional center at the age of three. and bring back to the Regina Center thanks to one of the amazing neuropsychologists who was in shock while he was on the Regina Center. He lost many years of therapy. He's 21 now. He can barely speak, but thanks to therapy, he's thriving, also thanks to self-determination. And I can tell you that I'm afraid because even though he has hydrocephalus, precephalus, cerebral palsy, autism, intellectual disability, hemiplegia, and short-term memory. I'm afraid that because he's striving now, thanks to self-determination program and the therapy that he has received through the years, I'm afraid that if this tool is put in place, he might be, you know, look under the loop just because he's doing better. I just want to tell Mr. Cerenka that thanks to the services, our kids are thriving. And it doesn't mean because they're thriving and this tool is going to determine that they are no longer qualified. They're going to regress and lose all the gains that they have through the years. So I am strongly speaking not just on behalf of my son, but on behalf of the community. on behalf of families caregivers and community members supporting fernando gomez will strongly reject the current standardization of digital tools and questionnaires this rigid form has failed to accommodate language culture or logistic analysis penalizing vulnerable and individuals and creating significant barriers to care We request an end to using automated formulas to predetermine eligibility or reduce services hours as caregiving requires a human process that digital formulas cannot manage Thank you for your urgent attention to this important matter. Thank you. Thank you. Next, name and affiliation, please. Hi. Good afternoon, Dr. Jackson and Honorable Committee. My name is Elizabeth Gomez. I'm the co-founder and director of the Integrated Community Collaborative. And a lot of us have come here today to tell you. My husband, Fernando Gomez, did mention that we have two boys. One is here, my son with Down syndrome. That's your husband? This is my husband. Ah, okay. I see what's going on here. And we were blessed with two beautiful boys, and he has Down syndrome. My other son has autism, and he was in the early intervention program. At three years old, it was decided that he was functional and that he was not going to need any services. Against my six cents, I navigated elementary school, middle school, as best as we could, but my son was the one suffering. I did not know how much he was suffering. And at middle school, he stopped going exactly during COVID, actually. He stopped attending school. He has not come back, not one day back to school. And my fear is that, like him, there's so many more. The word functional on paper removes many clients from the regional center. And like my son, missed out on a lot of years. I still remember when he used to smile. He doesn't anymore. And so I urge you to please, and I said this to DDS, a lot of our members of the community who have autism may look okay, but they're dealing with a lot of things inside. And they're not functional in jobs or to live a normal life. So like my son, I ask that you please look into these evaluation tools. Another thing that I want to tell you, the respite tools do exist in all 21 regional centers. Maybe not by a standardized tool that DDS is proposing, but every regional center has a tool. And most of our families, Latino families and all families walk away with 12 hours of services of respite. And that's all they get based on those boxes that says if you walk, if you breathe, if you talk, you get zero points. You have to be, you know, really extreme and you have to vilify your child in order to get services. So this is the reason why we are so afraid of what's being proposed here today. I understand. So thank you. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. You wanted to just say something? Fernando. Fernando. Fernando Gomez. He supports his dad's testimony. All right. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Ruby Saldana. I am ICC co-founder and mother of three clients served by the system. Thank you for the opportunity to hear. And I'm agree with Fernando Gomez and Elizabeth Gomez. And I have something in credit, Mr. Dr. Yasson, but I'm not going to read. I'm just going to speak from my heart. Yeah. I have three children, two of them with autism. They were assessed and they were like the diagnosis came late. And all that I had was I'm sorry. one of them, you know him. He was next to you. And he's a wrestler today. But he depends a lot on services. But because he walks, because he looks okay, he will be without services, just as Diego Gomez. Because I was pushing a lot for him. Like them, there is a lot of kids. I went in three hearings, trying to defend three kids in three different regional centers. And guess what? It was the same system. I found that it was the same specialist behind those cases. It was the same doctor, the same specialist, the same thing, and it was the same kind of pattern. They trying to look people in disadvantage by ethnic, economic, or language. Because those people who were vulnerable looked like they were targeting it. So I have fear for my kids, but more because of them. I can defend myself, and I will, with all my heart and all that I have. But what about them? Just please, I urge you to defend us and think about those kids that are in the shadows and our people. Like people are suffering right now. Thank you very much. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Hi, my name is Marisol Gomez. I am here on behalf of my son, who is a client of the regional center. For families like mine, regional center services are essential. My son's opportunities, independence, and quality of life depend on the supports he receives. I also want to express my support for Fernando Gomez's comments. Families deserve answers about why this assessment is being pushed forward so quickly. DDS should focus on completing and evaluating the work already underway before implementing another major assessment system. If the respite assessment tool was paused because it was not ready, how can many families have confidence that this much larger assessment will be done correctly? I am deeply concerned that this assessment could create more barriers to services, affect eligibility, or weaken the individualized person-centered planning process. The regional center system was built on the principle that services should be based on the unique needs of each individual. The truth is we do not need more tools. We do not need another assessment that tries to fit people into categories. What we need is a commitment to providing services based on each person's individual needs, strengths, goals, and circumstances. No standardized tool can replace the voice of the individual, their family, and the person-centered planning process. As a parent, I have experienced unmet needs, service denials, and barriers to assessing support for my son. Families should not have to have fear that another assessment will create even more obstacles. I urge GDS to slow down, listen to families and self-advocates, and ensure that any decisions protect individualized services and supports the lives of people with developmental disabilities are too important to be reduced to a score or a checklist. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Hey, I remember you. Good afternoon My name is Los Kemper Raise the mic You can take control there There you go Okay thank you Thank you Good afternoon My name is Oscar Mercado I a self with the Integrated Community Collaborative But most importantly, I'm somebody on the spectrum. I go to college. I'm 20 years old. I'm one of those individuals that the system failed, unfortunately. I didn't get services until mid-2021. But it was during those times in my school year where I confronted my most difficulties. And it was because of the fact that many of the things that were discussed today, the abilities that I had, the strengths that they supposedly say, well, I understand the person-centered process looks at strengths, but there's also a need. And I fear that if a tool is implemented statewide, many individuals in my predicament are going to fall behind because they're going to look at the strengths and they're going to say there is no need. So my fear is that they're going to concentrate heavily on the strengths and forgetting the needs. A lot of self-advocates are here present, and they're going to share their stories and how this is going to impact them. I completely agree with Fernando Gomez, and I completely agree with the fact that we don't need more tools. What we need is the philosophy and implementation of person-centered planning in these processes. And what does that look like? It means that you look at the entire person. You don't ignore any aspects or faucets of the individual during their IPPs. You focus on them completely. You look at their needs, and you give them the services that they need. No more, no less. And that's basically the gist of what we're trying to fight here for today. So thank you for this conversation. I appreciate the dialogue that was had, but we really need to focus on person-centeredness if we're going to achieve equity. Thank you. Absolutely. Next up, name and affiliation, please. Hello. Okay. I am Ricardo Araguin Solano. I have been with VMRC since I was two years old. I have autism and ADHD, and even though I may look functional on the outside, that doesn't mean I'm fully capable of being independent. I struggle with many daily tasks and support to do them safely and correctly. This help isn't optimal for me, and it's what I need to be independent. But over the years, I've become very disillusioned with the current state of things, and I am sick of this. I feel like the people you're supposed to be supporting, like me, are being overlooked and not really cared for. It also feels like we're being led in circles that don't really lead nowhere and we're being breadcrummed. I ask you to remember that our services are not luxuries. They are necessities. And I'm here today to strongly oppose the proposed equity needs assessment tool. Please reject this tool because it will move us backward. Please take into consideration the lack of services and denying them to those who urgently need them, like me and other people, will suffer tremendously. Please defend this in its entirety. Please defend us in our system and our needs, please. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Buenas tardes. Gracias por la oportunidad. I'm going to try to speak in Spanish, but my message is very similar to Oscar Mercado, my son, Elizabeth, and Rubín. Oh, I got my translator waiting. Oh, I'm bad at mine. Because I need everybody to hear my message. Okay, here I am. Thank you Hay palabras que una madre jam deber escuchar de su hijo Durante a Oscar siempre repet mam cuando t ya no est yo creo que voy a terminar viviendo debajo de un puente No lo decía porque no quisiera luchar con su condición. Lo decía porque se sabía invisible y vulnerable ante un sistema que no miraba sus necesidades. I only saw a young man with autism who communicated, but they didn't see the anxiety caused by not feeling appreciated, the fear and the enormous effort he had every day to simply go ahead. Everything changed when someone, Tony Anderson, just left to measure their capacities and began to recognize their needs. Mi hijo dejó de hablar de un puente y empezó a hablar de un futuro. Hoy les habla una madre que ya conoce el futuro cuando no hay apoyos. Les pido que no permitan que una herramienta estandarizada decida el destino de miles de personas como Oscar. Porque la discapacidad no desaparece cuando una persona aprende a ocultarla. Y el sufrimiento no deja de existir simplemente porque otros no lo pueden ver. Les suplico que voten pensando no en números o presupuestos, sino en la vida de miles de personas como Oscar, que solo necesitan que alguien crea en ellas antes de que vuelvan ellos a creer que un puente es el único lugar que les espera. I definitely say no to this equality needs assessment tool because this is not person-centered practice. Gracias. Gracias. Name and affiliation, please. Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Maricruz y soy la mamá de un joven de 17 años con síndrome de Down. I am the voice and defender of my son, I strongly oppose the implementation of this standardization tool. Every person who is at the regional center is a human being, with its own strengths, needs, metas y desafíos. Una herramienta de estandarizada no puede reflejar con precisión la individualidad de cada cliente. Este enfoque agrede la dignidad, los principios de atención centrada en la persona y los servicios individualizados que el centro regional se ha comprometido a brindar. Las decisiones que afectan la vida de una persona nunca deberían basarse en un proceso de talla única o en un modelo que trate a todos por igual sin considerar sus diferencias. Respetuosamente les pido que reconsideren el uso de esta herramienta y que garanticen que cada cliente siga siendo visto, escuchado y valorado. como un individuo y no como una puntuación o una categoría estandarizada gracias por su tiempo y por su consideraci thank you gracias name an affiliation please Oh Hi, Nestor Neves. I'm a self-advocate with many hats, but in all my hats, I advocate for the self-advocates to be included in the community and reach for the potential. and the concern and why I do not support moving forward with this equity needs assessment tool right now is because they're going to look at, like, the strengths and underplay the needs. And people are concerned, like, that, like, if people are making progress towards goals in life, to be integrated into community, like making steps towards employment or independent living things like driving, that will downplay the needs and services will be taken away. Oh, I guess I'm nervous. Take your time. You're good. Okay, I guess what makes people suspicious about this proposal is the timing of it because earlier this year, we had to defend our services in Sacramento, and recently DDS had just asked for public input about cost effectiveness definition and also with the situation at the federal level. People know there's pressure to cut costs and are suspicious about any new proposals. You've got to prove that this is not going to take away services and not going to take away eligibility before moving forward. And this came out of the blue after, and not in the regular legislative cycle, So people feel this move too fast and it needs more time. Yeah. Thank you. Well done. Name and affiliation, please. Good morning. Well, good afternoon. My name is Juan Cruz. Who knows what time of day it is? I mean, is the sun even up still? I don't know. So good afternoon. My name is Juan Cruz. I am a parent advocate in the ICC. I appreciate the opportunity to provide public comment. I respectfully ask that before these changes move forward, the department carefully evaluates the real-world impact or individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. Policies that are intended to improve consistency should not result in increased denials or unnecessary delays or reduce access to services. Many families were unable to participate in the webinar because they had already concluded. As a result, today's hearing may be one of the few remaining opportunities for families to share their experiences. I encourage the department to continue seeking input from those who will be directly affected before finalizing these changes. Families and services providers are partners in the system. we ask that any implementation prioritize fairness, transparency, and access while preserving the intent of the Landerman Act to provide individualized, personal-centered services. I also stand behind Fernando Gomez's statement today. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Name the affiliation, please. Hello, my name is Gilda Girón, representing Disability Voices United. I recognize that today's hearing is on equitable access to intake and services. I also want to share an example that I think is relevant to this committee's oversight of DDS stakeholder engagement process. During DDS's public meetings on the cost effectiveness proposal, meaningful engagement did not occur. DDS hired mission analytics to facilitate the meetings, but many participants didn't know who they were or why they were leading the discussion. We spent about 35 minutes listening to a presentation, leaving little time for the community to speak, and it felt like the meeting was ready to end just as stakeholders were prepared to provide feedback. If the legislature expects meaningful stakeholder engagement on proposals of this magnitude, DDS must create opportunities for genuine dialogue and people with developmental disabilities and their families deserve a process where their voices are heard before decisions are made. This is moving fast and we would like to slow down the process. Thank you. Thank you. Name an affiliation please. Thank you. Good afternoon. You can bring that down. Girl, I got the same problem. Don't worry. Thank you. I'm in a booster seat right now. Chair Jackson, I appreciate you. Members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. My name is Yasmin Herrera-Vilches. I am a parent, independent facilitator for the Self-Determination Program, and my affiliation is with Disability Voices United. So I'm a mother of an adult son who receives developmental services. At one point, a crisis residential placement was discussed for my son. What we understood about that option concerned us enough that we held back on seeking certain supports for him. It wasn't until the self-determination program that gave us another path, greater choice and control to build individualized support around him. Today, he's home with his family and in his community. That experience is why I'm here today. An equitable assessment does not necessarily mean equitable access to services. We already see gaps between services authorized and services actually utilized. Before building another system to identify needs, we must improve the systems we already have for meeting them. Chair Jackson, you spoke about fidelity. We need fidelity across the entire pathway. Need identified, IPP developed, service authorized, provider available, support delivered. And people's needs change across a lifetime. Our system must be able to respond when they do. If California measures need, we must also measure the timeline from need to actual support. Accountability, transparency, and clear timelines are our only duty to the people this system serves. People with intellectual and developmental disabilities do deserve better. Please do not move a change of this magnitude through a budget trailer bill language. Please give the public the comprehensive and transparent process that it deserves. Success is not identifying need better. Success is meeting it. Thank you. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Good afternoon, my name is Maria Montoya. I'm mother of this child with severe autism. And even seeing my child's need, it's very visible. It's so difficult to navigate the system. No, no, no, no. This is a With the need it was from 9 years old it was that she received the services of the regional center As a mother it is very difficult to navigate the system And even so, seeing my child's need, it is difficult to access the system. Please take into consideration in your vote todos los cambios que le están haciendo a la ley, porque en lugar de ayudar a los clientes, los viene a perjudicar más y a limitar en los servicios. Si aún ahorita es difícil accesar a los servicios, con todos estos cambios va a ser muy difícil. Uno como madre es madre y se enfrenta a unos sistemas que están muy preparados y apoyo el comentario del señor Fernando. Gracias. Let me just say that before she leaves, before she leaves, can you provide translation, ma'am? Can you provide translation to her? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I got everything. I got everything. Thank you, AI. Okay? I understand how difficult it is to navigate a complex system while still taking care of the needs of your son. And it is going to be our number one priority to make sure that the system is not going to make it harder for you, but easier for you to get quality, timely, and individualized services. So I need you to know that. Okay? Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Good afternoon. My name is Claudia Castillo, and here is Erin Suniga and Victoria Suniga, my kids. They both have autism. You see them? Perfectly kids. Beautiful. Ten fingers, two eyes, but they have an invisible disability. Yes. They have autism. Mm-hmm. So to your eyes, they might fall into the cracks of the new system tool that you're trying to implement. Because it is based, actually, it's a broken system that it's based on what the person that's in front of them, it's limited to what she or he sees, right? And for these kids, I have fought with my teeth and nails till now. for all the services that they deserve, that they should have. Like I got in front of you on May 7th with Chair Menjivar, and I told you that I needed help, and your friend or your colleague, Katie Hamburger, never returned my emails, never returned my calls. And I don't care how many times I have to wake up at 3 a.m. with my kids and be here in front of you guys to tell you that, to change the systems, to buy a new tool. It's not going to fix anything. Why don't we fix the real McCoy? We already have it in place. It been there for 50 years and for some has worked and for some hasn But let fix it instead of creating a new thing that all these kids because they stand and they walk are going to fall through the cracks Let's fix what you have already in place. Invest that money instead of buying a new tool into fixing what you already have in hands for us, for these kids, for the future. because you don't know if these kids will be your new doctors, your new nurses. We need to invest in them. I work at, you know where Skid Row is in Los Angeles? Absolutely. I worked there for 15 years in a clinic, in a free clinic for the homeless. And I want you guys to gather the data of how many youth were in those programs that had intellectual disabilities because guess what? That's where they end up, being homeless with no support. So the fixing is right now. This is the future, right now, not in five years. We need to fix the system right now. Thank you. Thank you. How early did you have to get up? 3 a.m. Oh. I come from Weaver, California. 3 a.m. What does that look like? I never. Oh, it's dark. Oh. Absolutely. Safe travels. Name and affiliation, please. Hello. My name is Erica Hernandez, and I'm pretty much going to read this. I don't do good with public speaking. That's okay. And emotions get the best of me, and I can't function. So I am a member of ICC and the mother of a child served by the system. I support Fernando Gomez's comments and thank every organization standing with their families. I strongly oppose restrictive evaluations and cost-effectiveness standards that could limit essential services for individuals with developmental disabilities. I also oppose implementing a new standardized assessment tool when individualized planning is essential. Past restrictive assessment methods, including those used for respite, have left families without adequate support. We must not repeat those mistakes. Generic services failed my son. Take your time. When I saw appropriate support, he was placed on wait lists. during that time his needs intensified resulting in significant regression so i ask that you see families like mine children like my son families should not fear that evaluations intended to identify their child's needs and strengths will later be used to deny eligibility or essential support our families were led to believe that only one part of the system would be affected. Today, we learned that two separate areas may be impacted. We are not fully informed. Families deserve transparency and a meaningful opportunity to provide input before changes affecting eligibility and services are implemented. Equitable access should eliminate barriers, not create new ones. Our children must never be reduced to a budget or cost calculation. Every person deserves an individualized evaluation based on their unique needs and circumstances. So Mr Jackson I strongly urge you to stop these restrictive measures and protect equitable access family participation individual choice and timely person support Thank you for your time Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Hola, buenas. Mi nombre es Sandra Marcelli. Formo parte del ICC. Soy madre de una niña atendida por este sistema. Estoy aquí para apoyar primeramente el comentario del señor Fernando Gómez y me opongo fuertemente a las propuestas del GDS. Herramientas como estas han pasado actualmente, que están pasando actualmente en nuestros centros regionales. Nunca nos han dado más servicios que lo poco que hemos tenido. Yo tengo una jovencita de 26 años actualmente y me costó para que me le dieran, que me le comenzaran a dar respiro. Me ha costado demasiado mi hija sacarla adelante porque toda la vida le ponen el estable, le hable, venga, y nunca, nunca le resuelven absolutamente nada a uno. Nunca, nunca. Y ahora con esto es peor. Todas las familias necesitan ayuda. Por eso estamos aquí, por eso hemos venido acá para apoyar y para que ustedes vean las necesidades que realmente tenemos la comunidad hispana. Porque nuestra comunidad is the most affected, completely affected. Thank you. Good evening to all, dear members of this committee. My name is Maria Lopez. I am co-founder and manager of ICC. I am also mother of a adult child with special needs. He is a customer of the regional center of South Central. This time I just want to ask all of you to listen to us, families. With me today, we have 30 people in Los Angeles, in two bands, no matter if we don't have slept all night, no matter if we are running all night for us, we are leaving our jobs, our children, our spouses, our houses, casas, incluso traemos clientes que no los ven aquí porque ellos ni siquiera pueden tener la habilidad de mantenerse aquí mucho tiempo por sus necesidades, pero ellos están con nosotros. Ellos son parte de estas juntas. Todo este año hemos venido muchísimas veces. Las familias queremos vida. Estamos cansadas de vuelta y vuelta y vuelta porque este sistema no es fuerte, no es firme, no apoya a nuestros hijos. Necesitamos su compromiso de todos para que nuestros hijos tengan los servicios que necesitan. Las familias también queremos tener vida, queremos tener paz, queremos tener hijos felices y familias contentas, pero necesitamos estar aquí constantemente manejando hasta con nuestros propios recursos que a veces no tenemos. Aquí estamos y estamos porque es bien importante que no se sigan pasando herramientas como esta que discriminan, excluyen a nuestros hijos, los cuales tienen algunos la habilidad de hablar, algunos la habilidad de seguir una instrucción. Eso no es vida, no es bueno que se les esté excluyendo. También quiero, este señor Jackson, quiero dejar cartas de las mamis que venimos desde allá, porque sabemos que no tenemos tiempo de hablar todas mucho tiempo, pero ojalá que se tomen el tiempo. are directed to you, Mr. Jackson, and the members of the committee. And I hope they can take time to review them. Thank you and good night to everyone. Good afternoon, Chairman Jackson. My name is Selena Estrada. I'm a mother of two children who are clients of the East Los Angeles Regional Center. For my family, services are not optional. They're essential. My children's lives and futures depend on these supports. I want to express my support for Fernando Gomez's comment today. And my question is to the DDS director. Why is this happening so fast? We have other tools that have been paused, like the respite tool. What is a rush for this specific tool? I'm deeply concerned that this assessment could reduce services, affect eligibility, or shift the focus away from the IPP process. And Amy, I have a question to you. I'm here standing in front of you with two children who have. You need to address me. Make sure you're addressing me. Sorry for a part of regional center who create, who've used tools with both my children and my sister who's here today. Also, I said in her IPP meeting with the same exact tool because they have their own internal policies that limit the services that we, our children receive. Sorry. I'm also concerned about the emphasis on assessing the strengths that they are proposing with this assessment. My children have strengths, but their strengths do not lessen their disabilities or the supports that they need. I worry that the strengths are weighted too heavily without fully recognizing the individual's support needs. families would receive fewer services instead of the services they truly need. I would like to state that I don't truly trust in the system today. I came here with the understanding that there was one proposal just to find out that there is two proposals that are being considered. Families deserve meaningful input changes for the magnitude moving forward. Please slow down and listen to the community. And please, I urge that we don't rush decisions that could have lifelong consequences for individuals like my children with intellectual disabilities. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, you did well. This is your house, girl. This is your house. I'm shaking. Oh, no. You're okay. Thank you. Thank you. Well done. Thank you. Good job. Good morning. My name is Carlos Hernandez and I am a self-advocate. I traveled from the Inland Empire to be here today because I am asking you to help protect the Landerman Act. Every person with a developmental disability is unique. We all have different strengths, needs, goals, and dreams. That is why I respectfully ask you to say no to standardization and yes to individual program plan My IPP should continue to reflect who I am and what I need to live a meaningful and independent life Please listen to the voices of self-advocates and families before making change that could affect their rights. Thank you for time, for listening, and for protecting our rights. I trust that you will stand with us. Thank you very much. Thank you, Carlos. My name is Cecilia Ortiz Barajas. I am the mother of two neurodivergent individuals, one of whom is served by a regional center, and I am the director of Padres Unidos por el Autismo, an organization that has supported families throughout California for years. Today, I speak with deep concern. The Lanterman Act recognizes that every person is unique. That is the foundation of regional center services. If every individual has different needs, strengths, and goals, why are we moving toward increasingly standardized processes? Gracias. Thank you, Carlos. Hello, good afternoon. My name is Delfina Reyes. My angel is Alexander Reyes, my husband Gonzalo Reyes. My son has a syndrome that is not very common. Of every 20,000 cases, it is one. syndrome of angels he is to work for 24 hours 2 to 1 and I do not think that to use o dog do have those changes that they want to make with the tool because that tool no no apply for my he he you I paid you i remember because he but he he I'm not sure about the tool they want to implement, because that tool implies not capturing the unique and complex needs of my son. And he's not the only child who has these complex needs. Thank you. Hit memory. Yep, name and affiliation please Go ahead Gwen Martinez Hello This is my public comment We do not want to be excluded from the system Because of our disabilities We deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness Any decisions that are made Should not negatively impact people with disabilities Our voices must be heard and we should be included in the decision-making process. We already face many barriers within the regional centers. Instead of creating more obstacles policies should promote equal access inclusion and the services and support we need to live independently and participate fully in our communities Please ensure that every decision protects the rights of people with disabilities and helps remove barriers, not create new ones. Thank you. Good job. Señor Jackson, mi nombre es Jacqueline Casas, soy la madre de Gwen Martínez y quiero comentarle que yo tengo aproximadamente siete meses en constantes correos electrónicos donde se encuentra el señor Servinca, se encuentra la senadora Lola Smallwood Cuevas y también asambleísta Brian y también están varias agencias como State Council, DRC y también está Ombudsman. where I put evidence what I've been living for years with my son and I'm still living. I want to say that I was in audience and the regional center has not been respected the decisions that were taken when the OACH signed and also the IDES. I have been working for a long time and I have been working for two years with this problem. They have not been able to operate with the stress that I have been living as a mother. It's a terrible stress, where the regional center doesn't give me solutions. And unfortunately, this impact on my life and on my son's life, because my son's life depends on me. And I want to tell you that in constant emails that I have collected, I told you that I was going to go to Sacramento, where I was going to make him know, in front of Mr. Servinca and of you, what I'm living for long times. porque no son cortos pequeños los que vivimos la comunidad latina. Nosotros venimos de Los Ángeles, no venimos porque vengamos de vacaciones, venimos por las necesidades y las preocupaciones que vivimos como padres, que atravesamos constantemente. Mi hijo recibió los servicios hasta los ocho años y con muchas dificultades, donde el centro regional me decía, tócale la puerta a tu vecina para que te vaya a ayudar a cuidar a tu hijo or call your friends. Those were the answers, the answers I received. Until I had a voice. And now that's why I'm here. Because we're all in the community. We're tired. We have too much pressure. We're tired. And we want to take into account. Because we're not living a easy life. And much less our children. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Gabriela Romero and I'm here supporting all the comments of Mr. Fernando Gómez. Today I'm not only here as my mother, but as the voices of thousands of families that live every day the reality of a discapacity. I ask you with the heart and hands that you have the new tools and the directives of DDS. Nuestros hijos no son experimentos ni una hoja de cálculo. El síndrome de Down, el autismo y la discapacidad intelectual no son condiciones temporales. ¿Por qué obligar a nuestras familias a demostrar años y años una realidad que nunca va a cambiar? Nos preocupa profundamente que estas herramientas se utilicen para negar o reducir servicios bajo el argumento de que eso es el costo efectivo. detrás de cada servicio hay una persona, una familia y un futuro que depende de este apoyo y como es posible gastar 11 millones de d en un sistema de datos mientras se ponen en riesgo los servicios y la ayuda We will spend million in a data system while the services and the help of our children Our children must learn to communicate, work and live with dignity. I ask them transparency, honesty and compassion. Our children are not numbers in a budget, they are human beings with dreams, rights and infinite value. Por favor, pónganse de lado de las familias, protejan los derechos de nuestros hijos y detengan estas medidas antes de que sea demasiado tarde. Gracias. Y al final, mi pregunta, ¿dónde quedó la equidad? Gracias por escucharme. Thank you very much. And also, I really want everyone to know that we don't... Our decisions that we are doing moving forward... Hold on now. You'll get your chance. Hold on, baby. He's talking. Dr. Johnson is talking, so we've got to wait. Wait. Let me just say that... this is not about the numbers. We want to make sure that this system meets your needs. And I know in many cases it can seem as though we're just trying to find ways to cut costs. We're just trying to find ways to deny services. I want to assure you, and I want to assure everyone, That the goal of this committee is always to making sure that you have whatever services that you need and the way you need it. And to make sure that the services are proven to have the outcomes that you expect out of your loved ones. Okay. Okay, and so just make sure that you, we want to make sure that you understand that and that we're hearing what your concern is as well. Now, let's see what homework she has for me now. Go ahead. Good afternoon. Excuse me. Good afternoon. My name is Glenys Ulloa. My name is Jose Ulloa. My name is Jose Ulloa. We are a family from Riverside County. Dr. Jackson, thank you, and thank you, everybody in the committee, for listening to our concerns. Dr. Jackson, you probably don't know me yet, but I know you because I know you also participated in the behavioral health committee, and I used to work there, and I am a former parent partner and family advocate, And I'm here today advocating for my daughter. We are parents, like I said, from Riverside County, and we are here today. We drove seven and a half hours to be here. And we are deeply concerned about the DDS proposal for equitable access to intake services. Sarah has received services through England Regional Center, center and we know personally what these services have meant to our family. They are not a luxury. They are not something we can simply replace. These services have helped Sarah have many opportunities that otherwise she might not have had. We worry that such proposal will reduce the services that she receives. Please don't solve inequities. by reducing access or support for the people who already depend on these services. We strongly urge you to uphold the commitment to the Lanterman Act and to individualized services. Our children deserve equity, but they also deserve continuity, quality, and the services that they need to thrive. My daughter did not get any services. She was able to get services when she was a baby through three years, right? And then they transfer her to the school system. And because all I heard from the service coordinator was sign here every year, I decided to pull her out of those services until now that she's an adult. So please protect the services that our children receive. Thank you for your time. Thank you. She got it right. Okay. Payment affiliation, please. Good evening. Nice to meet you in person, Dr. Jackson. And thank you, everyone, for listening to us today. So my name is Leti Lopez. My son, Angel, has been a Ray Johnson & Her client for 22 years. My daughter will soon start the intake process, and I fear. It feels I have to prepare for battle. I am deeply concerned for these rushing, bad-spend millions to standardized language and intake processes. It almost seems that all this is being done and rushed not to benefit the needs and supports and services of our people, but in ways that can deeply affect them. This is concerning and should be investigated further. There's no trust because families continue to experience injustices. Our kids are not one size fits all. We don't need more obstacles or limitations when it comes to accessing services. It's straining to the entire family mentally and physically. And we are here today because our kids matter. We need streamlined solutions to access and keep services, perhaps providing remedial services when families win a fair hearing after services have been wrongly denied, reduced, or delayed, as there is no accountability yet. I oppose to the equity needs assessment tool or any standardized language and equitable access to intake and service proposal. So thank you for listening to us. And this is my son, Angel. All right. Welcome, Angel. Hello. It's nice to meet you in person. Nice to meet you. Oh, my name is Adrian Hernandez. Hello? Nice. My name is Adrian Hernandez, and I am a client of Regional Center. I'm speaking for me, my little sister, and the others. I graduated this year. I did it. All right. With a bachelor's degree in arts and animation, it doesn't mean I don't have any more needs and supports. I have challenges and unique needs. With these proposals, it makes me feel concerned and scared. I'm afraid of the outcome of any changes of the law. I'm afraid of losing my services any minute and my little sister not being able to get the services We need protections and making sure we have easy access to have and to keep services I oppose the equity needs assessment tool and standardized language and equitable access to intake and services proposal Thank you. Thank you. Well done. Did a good job. Where did you graduate from? From Cal State LA. All right. Congratulations. Thank you. Hello, my name is Derek Hearthstower, and I'm a regional center client. Assessments and consistency are both good and needed. However, this post-intake assessment should not be used to deny people services, which this text does not rule out and seems to imply by using words like in alignment with their level of need. Mild, moderate, and severe should not be terms used about us. This enables functioning discrimination. People who get labeled low-functioning often get their agency reduced, and people labeled high-functioning get their support reduced. For example, I was expelled in retaliation from a day program when they gave the excuse that I am too smart. By allowing this excuse to be given, DDS has shown a bias when it comes to our needs, that we don't have emotional needs, and people that can act so-called normally don't need help with their suffering. Another problem with this text is the use of the term evidence-based. There is no objective definition for evidence-based, so how can we hold anyone accountable to it? I was denied sensory STEM materials when my regional center outrageously said it is not evidence-based that STEMing helps autistic people. There is too much bias against disability culture in this system for DDS to tell us what we need. I could spend hours talking about how DDS and my regional center continue to deny our dignity. We are in a crisis, and this proposal seems to me like more of the same for your own good thinking. Any needs assessment should be made by the people who best understand our needs, ourselves. It should be made by us with your support and not by you with our support. And it should only be used to illuminate our experiences, not restrict our freedom, which will and does happen when we disagree about our needs.

Thank you. Well done.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Name an affiliation, please.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. Name an affiliation, please.

Thank you.

Thank you. You brought your grandson one time, or did you have a picture? Am I right?

Name an affiliation, please.

I'm ready, baby. All righty. Hello, Mike.

Thank you. You did a good job.

It's all right.

Gracias.

Thank you. Name and affiliation, please.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please.

Thank you.

para tomar una decisión así. Porque nosotros como padres ni a los clientes no nos tomaron en cuenta. Nunca nos dijeron vamos a hacer esto. Tomaron decisiones sin la familia, sin los clientes. No nos tomaron en cuenta y eso es duro, porque a nosotros nos toca luchar, como dijo la señora. Enfermera. Yo por las noches tengo que acomodar a mi hijo porque tiene acné de sueño. No puede respirar. No pude y trateo tiempo con una máquina que le dan para la acné de sueño. Mi última opción fue una almohada para embarazada. My son from the left side is how he can breathe. If he turns to the right side, he starts to the right and starts to the right. I don't sleep at night because I'm on the right side. If he's crying, he's angry when he's crying and he's crying. I have to be alert. And if I do, my husband is there, my son in our room because he can't be alone. and it's difficult. That's why I ask you to make a decision here. All of you do it in the best way, without affecting our children, which is really important Thank you very much Thank you Hi my name is Sonia Thank you for staying here even this late to let us provide our comment. I have a son, 27 years old, with autism. He's severe because, sadly, the system failed him. He's not verbal. And hearing all the cases of the other families break my heart. I see other, I feel in community because they understand me. And I understand that their needs when I see the other adults with, you know, anxious waiting in the other room and making noises. He's not bothering us because we understand because we're in the same boat. and I'm here. I wanted to bring him, but it's not possible for him to be here. We're too extreme, anxious, be waiting in too many people. We're working so hard with the services he received from the regional center, from the DDS. And sadly, because the system failed, the school system, regional center, when they don't provide the services on a timely basis, inappropriate. Many, many, many clients have delays in their progress, and sadly we are here once again trying to inform all of you how is our life, how difficult it is, and how we want to be here. Sadly, we don't trust because all this happening, like they're here. Alex, I met him, and I see my son in him. But he is able to be here. My son is not able to be here. And as a parent, as a Hispanic family, we work very hard trying to be the nurse, the behavioral technician and everything to help them. And we want to feel like they have accountability when they provide services. And, you know, don't make mistakes. And if they can be in our field one day, they can have a son or daughter with a disability. Maybe they understand better how is our life. Thank you. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. My name is Lorena Gomez and I'm part of Disability Boys United. I have a child of 26 years old with autism. I know my son and I know the support he needs. I worry about an evaluation of how many services my son can receive or other people. Our children are not all the same. Each person has different needs. Una herramienta no debe de reemplazar el IPP o la voz de nuestros hijos o de nuestra familia. Ya es difícil para muchas familias conseguir los servicios que nuestros hijos necesitan. No queremos más barreras. Antes de hacer este cambio, escuchen a las personas con discapacidades y a sus familias. No permitan que esta herramienta se use para reducir servicios o limitar apoyos. My son is not a number or a formula. Please protect your rights to receive the support you need... a plena. Gracias por escuchar. Gracias. Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Ruth López García. Tengo un hijo de siete años con autismo y con epilepsia que se convulsiona. Les quiero mostrar, este es mi hijo, así lleva la vida mi hijo, por la cual razón que estoy aquí, porque no estoy de acuerdo con los cambios que quieren hacer con la vida de nuestros hijos, si de por sí estamos batallando con los sistemas, nos ponen obstáculos, mi hijo no tiene terapias, yo tengo que convertirme para enseñarle a mi hijo, mi hijo no habla, mi hijo no come solo, mi hijo no se baña solo, tiene siete años, pero no es independiente en sí mismo, por la cual razón necesita de mi apoyo, por eso estoy aquí. Sin embargo, no ha sido fácil, pero estoy aquí de pie, no duermo, él no duerme, se desvela, él se duerme hasta las 12, hasta la 1 de la noche, pero sin embargo, aquí estoy yo de pie, me desvelo, soy mamá soltera, no tengo apoyo de nadie pero sin embargo aquí estoy de pie luchando por mi hijo por eso no estoy de acuerdo que quieran cambiar en la vida de nuestros hijos y apoyo el comentario del señor Fernando, no quiero una herramienta entandarizado. Quiero un verdadero plan centrado en la personalidad. Muchas gracias. Gracias. Hola, buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Maribel Falcón. Soy mamá de una niña con autismo. My daughter is 14 years old. I have 7 years old. I have 7 years old. I have been working on the whole group here at Capitolio for the services for our children. My daughter is 14 years old. I have struggled with her. She can mention that it works. So, I don't know if it's good or bad, because when she was more severe, she didn't realize her disability. Now that she's functional, she's realizing her disability and she's realizing her discrimination and bullying. She's a point of having thoughts. and that I have a mother I don't want to let her because my daughter is included and that she is funcional doesn't mean that she can defend herself and I don't want to the system because the they just decide that she doesn't need support apart from that my daughter recently also It's been a year for me to do a genetic genetic. And now it's also the syndrome of Smith-Mahenis. I've been looking for years because I knew it was something else. And it's the Smith-Mahenis. It now a physical health in the heart scoliosis and it now a heart a heart a heart and everything is also referred to as a body su salud f en el coraz escoliosis y tiene ahorita crecimiento de h todo referente tambi de su s Entonces, le compromete su sistema inmune. Entonces, el que reduzcan, el que cambien las herramientas, no es basado a una herramienta, es basado a la necesidad de cada uno de nuestros hijos. And as a mother, I'm 20, 30 years old, I'm going to continue here trying to fight and talk both for my daughter as for others who don't have a voice. So please, I ask you to reconsider all this in your votes and support the community that we are trying to do for the better and the improvement of our children, not for anything else. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Stephanie Cruz Lopez. I'm a sister of a person of 25 years old with severe autism, not verbal. Thank God he has a great family that he takes care of and takes care of. But even if we all are there for him, it's still difficult because he needs 24-7 help. I can't imagine how difficult it is for people who are alone without any help. He's been crying while listening to all the stories of today and more than once I've heard people with disabilities with disabilities, that their biggest concern is to think that it will be the life of their children if they're not missing. Please, they need their help and I hope you get on our shoes. It's sad that many people understand us until they're in our situation. I hope all these stories touch their heart. Muchas gracias por su atención y yo apoyo los comentarios del señor Fernando Gómez. Thank you very much. Gracias. Hola, buenas tardes. Mi nombre es María de Cruz López. Soy mamá de un joven con autismo no verbal, autismo severo. Y la verdad es muy difícil. He venido aquí varias veces, no sé cuántas más tenga que venir. Yo soy la voz de mi hijo porque él no habla. Él sabe que siempre va a tener lo mejor. I'm going to fight as a human being and I'm going to fight and I'm going to fight as a mother who I have to fight. I've said that even the same demon I'm going to fight for my son and I'll do it a thousand times. I don't have any fear. I don't know how many of you are parents and moms and they know that for our children we do. Imagine a child that doesn't talk, but has a lot of parents and mothers. And I hope you, those who are parents and mothers, you can touch the heart. Thank you. that it's not really transparent and for us, where we don't really see how it's going to benefit clients, it's the latest example in a long-standing pattern of proposed changes from the DDS that seem to be more about checking boxes and patting themselves on the back about doing changes than making sure that they meaningfully improve individuals' lives. I forget who mentioned earlier today that there is no standardized in-home respite tool when that's clearly not true because it's listed on the DDS website, SB 183, passed in 2023, any regional center clients were collecting data about clients. Whenever the DDS directives that come out of Sacramento they sound nice but they don filter down to the regional centers because a lot of families talk about that with the coordinators service coordinators and they don get an answer but well, things have changed recently and let's see what we can do or let's look for an alternative. Oftentimes, a lot of the answers, what they get is no, we can't do that. So it's the same barriers and denials that we've been talking about for years, still present. And frankly, it is frustrating having to do this routine all the time. It's very taxing on all of us. On the clients who don't have their services fully met when they're here, being stressed, having sensory overload and anxiety. Working families, that step of resources. But we cannot miss out on this because it impacts us too much on policymakers and legislators. You have limited time when you could be looking for better solutions or focusing on other problems. It's a very complicated system, I understand. The solutions are going to be messy and hard to get them perfect. But we need to make sure that there's something better. And my concern is that if we can insist on this specific model, that it's going to give a lot of us headaches for many years to come. Let's look for other states and see what they are offering might work better for us. Thank you all very much for your time. Thank you. Hello, my name is Spencer Magnish. I am a self-advocate, and I'm here to talk about the day program that I used to be with for regional. To be honest, I would never go back to that day program because, and I would never be forced to be returned to that program because of the way I was treated during my time there. I felt disrespected, unsupported, and unwelcome there because I tried to evacuate for myself. from the offender's attitude towards me changed. And I even experienced a situation with the founder's son who hit me in the face. Those experiences made me feel unsafe and it made it difficult for me to succeed. Despite everything that happened, I am grateful for the self-determination. I don't know how I would have gone this far if it weren't for my amazing resource mother. Her support along with the opportunities helped me move forward and become more independent, and I'm still continuing to continue working toward my goals. That is why I am worried about this assessment. I am concerned that it could replace my right to choose the services and support that are best for me. And the choices that self-determination has given me. I believe people with disabilities should continue to have a voice in their own lives and be able to choose what works best for them. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And well done. Hello. First of all, I want to say thank you, Dr. Jackson, for staying this late to hear us all out. My name is Stephanie Jackson. I'm very new to this whole system. You're a Jackson, too? No, no. Stephanie Jax. Oh, OK. Yeah. So I'm Spencer's resource mom. I been his resource mom for the last four years because unfortunately he lost his parent and his other parent became very ill So I did decided to stand in this role Well you doing a good job Thank you so much I would like to see much more discussion about what these standardized assessments will actually mean for individuals and families My concern is that DDS is moving too quickly to implement this without clearly defining how it will work in practice or what safeguards will be in place to protect individuals' rights. These concerns are not hypothetical. They came directly from my own experience last year. my own experience. Last year, Spencer and I experienced retaliation after raising concerns about a vendor. DDS ultimately confirmed that Spencer's rights were violated, yet nothing was done, and that same vendor continues to provide services without any accountability for what occurred. More recently, another individual from the same-day program reached out to me for help, and after reviewing the regional center's annual report, I found evidence that identified supports and needs are not being met for this young man while that vendor continues to bill and receive our tax dollars. That raises a much larger question. Equity also requires accountability. If the current system struggles to ensure accountability, why are we rushing to implement statewide standardized assessments without first addressing oversight enforcement and meaningful consumer protections. I respectfully ask that DDS pause this process long enough to engage the people on the front lines, individuals with disabilities, families, advocates, and providers who are living these experiences every day. We need to get this right before creating another system that could unintentionally harm the very people that it is intended to serve. One size does not fit all. Absolutely. Thank you so much for your time. Absolutely. I'm going to stay back. Thank you. One second. One second. One second, please. Johnny, one second. You want to stand up? You can stand up. He's locked up. Wait, wait, wait. Hold up. Okay. Wait, wait, wait. All right. Maybe we'll play it over here. All right. While we're waiting, did you, Edita, want to say anything? Come on up. We'll wait for her. That's okay. Thank you. My name is Yadir Morales. I'm a person served by Alto California Regional Center. I'm also an advocate with Disability Voices United and an independent facilitator with the Self-Determination Program. My disability is often invisible. I went undiagnosed until age 25. I often struggle with people not believing that I need help because I appear functional and have mobility. I've had service is denied to me because of this. Preconceived notions about what disability looks like and a priority on how disability affects others rather than how I experience my disability hurts my ability to get my needs met. So I'm very concerned about a standardized assessment tool. Regional centers are already struggling to implement the new IPP template and the respite tool. They do not consistently apply tools that are available. Caseloads remain unsustainable and effectiveness of case management varies widely from coordinator to coordinator. I do not think that DDS has proven yet that the implementation of any tool can be done uniformly and equitably. I worry that this is not the best use of funds at a time when we are facing Medicaid cuts in the next several years. Most importantly, I believe that what we need most are more person-centered conversations. I need regional center staff that speak with me, are curious, center my unique needs and life circumstances, and don't make assumptions about my needs or abilities. Only once this is a common experience will we be able to trust the system when they speak about standardization. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. No, no, no. We'll wait for her. Don't worry. Just come on up. Buenas tardes a todos. Estamos aquí en la posición a la herramienta estandarizada. Thank you. de personas con discapacidades del desarrollo. Lamentablemente, debido a falta de servicios que se necesitan individualmente, él ha estado en un hospital psiquiátrico tres veces cuando él ha estado solo, cuando las personas que deberían darle ese apoyo no se lo han podido dar. Entonces, pienso que eso y también cuando lo envuelven con la policía causará más daño tanto a él que necesita los servicios como a los constituyentes porque se gastará más dinero. It is something real, something real that one has been experiencing. It is a diagnosis of autism, has 21 years, has different chronic chronic medical conditions. Apart from several evaluations that are still missing, I ask you to put a lot of focus on this proposal. because it will affect thousands of lives like what has been happening all these years. I think it's not right, that's why the psychiatric hospitals closed. Please, I ask you as a mother. Do you want to say something? Hi Despite my autism I still want to try to work really hard and try to help provide at least for my family and friends who might need them the most especially a friend who really needs help with a lot of things but she still wants to be able to try to work and even provide for herself too. And she's also on the spectrum too, and she also has physical disabilities as well, But we're trying to find programs that could help her, but so far nothing has come up. And I want to try my best to at least help her try to find those programs or at least maybe provide for her so that way that eventually when she does found something that she could do for herself, I could try, you know, to also possibly help others that I also know, you know, to make sure that they also could provide, you know, support either for themselves or for their families as well. Mm-hmm. and despite them being on the spectrum they're still one of the more really good will people that I know and who still wants to try their best to work at it despite all their disabilities mental and physical I even have a friend who's back that she can't even do anything physical for a good while meaning she's not able to get a standard job And so I want to try to make sure any opportunities are open for anyone as long as they're willing to work hard. And these people that I know are like really hard workers. They really want to try to provide for themselves or their families. You know, they just need opportunities or at least try to find programs that could give them the help that they need as well. and even for myself too i'm still willing to work really hard as well even if i'm not even if i'm not uh comfortable of certain things because because of me being on the spectrum but i still want to work really really hard i still want to try my best for them and I'm willing to try to find opportunities with the help with my family too. And I want to make sure that I could try to work at it, try to make sure I just keep working on it, try to do the best I can. So that way when I'm able to help others, I hope that they could just help themselves or just help their families in any way that they could possibly do. That's it. Thank you. Well done. Thank you. Ma'am, if they don't want to do it, you can talk on their behalf. That's not a problem. I'll push what Johnny wrote, if that's okay. Of course. Thank you. And then I have something too. Okay. Hi, Dr. Jackson. How are you doing? My name is Johnny Hatch. I am a self-advocate. One of the ways I communicate is by typing and spelling on my iPad with a communication partner. Sadly, DDS doesn't support my way of communicating. Why would we trust DDS, when they are denying people like me, access to communication supports? Why does DDS get to pick and choose what they think works for us rather than look and ask us how we live our lives in successful meaningful ways to us I hope you doctor will listen and validate what I have to say today These quotes come from one of my favorite people, Mr. Fred Rogers. This is what he said about connection. All of us, at some time or other, need help. Whether we're giving or receiving help, each one of us has something valuable to bring to this world. That's one of the things that connects us as neighbors, in our own way. Each one of us is a giver and a receiver. This is what he said about shared responsibility. It's easy to say, it's not my child, not my community, not my world, not my problem. Then there are those who see the need and respond. And consider those people my heroes. This is what he said about kindness. There are three ways to ultimate success. The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way is to be kind. Thank you, Dr. Chair Jackson, for listening to us and for being kind. You are one of our heroes. One, four, three. Have a good day. Thank you. Have a good day. Say bye. Johnny, can you say goodbye, please? Bye, Johnny. Bye, Johnny. He probably will come back. Bye. He likes to go out and then comes back and waves about five times. Dr. Chair Jackson, my name is Christina Canarella, and I am very blessed to be Johnny's mom. Sorry. I haven't been able to cry since my mom passed a year and a half ago. Take your time. So maybe this is a good thing. I first need to give you a few seconds back of the extra minute that you graciously gave us to personally thank you, Dr. Jackson. In May of this year, I watched on the live feed how you compassionately stated that systems should always be focused and adhere what is in the best interest of the client, not the client having to adhere what is best for the provider. This can only happen if consumers and families are an integral part of what is created. After hearing how much you truly cared and seeing all the people who showed up for public comment, many, many of whom are here again today, inspired Johnny and me to show up and participate in these hearings directly. Between you and Senator Menjabar heading these committees, we found a sense of comfort knowing that our voices would truly be heard. DDS rebranded this proposal to equitable access to intake and services. But true equity requires real transparency, accountability, and accessibility. My concern is how community input is determined by DDS, because what we've experienced so far with the new changes that DDS has already implemented, they are not easily accessible, or there is no oversight to ensure regional centers are using the tools that DDS has created. At a recent DDS cost-effectiveness webinar, they ran out of time, couldn't answer half of our questions and told us to email them We have no idea what was done with our feedback because there is no accountability built into the system The new IPP template that Pete Cervanca spoke about is a great tool There was a lot of thought and effort put into it. I love the life goals at the end of the IPP and how person-centered it is, but regional centers aren't using it uniformly. Our previous CSC didn't even look at Johnny's person-centered plan that we specifically redid with the new template. And this was November of 2025, 11 months after it was implemented. Why are we rushing to build new tools when DDS isn't ensuring fidelity for the tools we already have? I like to make things simple. So let's just stop, as you said, Fernando said. Let's look and let's listen. Stop, look, listen. Let's stop. Let's take more time, as you said, Dr. Jackson. Show us a real template, DDS. Test it out with individuals in the system. Make changes needed and prove its fidelity before we roll it out. Let's look for better ways to engage our community, the individuals and families and their support systems. Host town halls to have successful Q&As like you had earlier today with your panels. to ensure access to everyone. Don't just rely on us emailing our comments. Find new ways to communicate with us, to get people to attend, offer food or gift cards. You know, many people show up for that stuff. Incentives for people to make sure their voices are heard. Another thought is implement a text message system to share information. Now, I know that we'll need to update the system, but let's include text messages. Like when we go to the doctor, They give us a reminder of what we need to do, and then they follow up with how would the doctor visit? What could change? What could we improve on? So not only will this engage our community to provide input, it will also give individuals and families a way to rate how our current services are going. There is no oversight or accountability for that right now. I'm sorry, there's not enough oversight or accountability. Lastly, really listen and gather all the information and prioritize what the people who receive the services say, not the people who provide the services. Create active, engaging, and accessible conversations directly with consumers and families, just like you've done today with your speakers. And make sure to include non-speaking individuals who spell and type to communicate. When I served on the board at North Los Angeles Regional Center, the lack of access for consumers without advocates became painfully obvious. Those living in group homes or care facilities are often silenced. We need to make sure we can include them. Dr. Jackson, you said tools help build things. I agree 100%. Let's take the time to make sure we build a system that actually lasts and serves the people that DDS was created to protect. Not protect the regional centers, not protect the vendors, but protect Johnny, Spencer, Oscar Antonio, every single individual who is here and not here today who is part of that system. Thank you so much for your time, your authenticity, and your listening skills. I remember you saying you were a social worker in the past. Thank you for truly caring about our community the way you do. It shows. Thank you. Appreciate you. Thank you. Seeing no one else for public comment, I want to thank everyone who made their journey here to ensure that their voices are heard. I want to thank the panelists. I want to thank the administration. I want to thank LA. All the advocates as well. Of course, I want to thank our committee staff and sergeants for ensuring that this is orderly and making sure that we make time for everyone who wished to speak. Obviously, we don't have a lot of time, but we're going to make the best use of our time. And we're going to try to make sure that we communicate as much as we can and deliberate as much as we can to ensure that we have, number one, a fair process. And then number two, that the results that we try to achieve, again, quality, timely, individualized services and making sure that it's not meant to deny services, but meant to ensure that people have the services that they need most importantly So we heard you I need you to know that we heard you And I also need you to know that at the same time it is our responsibility to go through this process in a way that will increase your trust in the process increase your trust in the system and the way we try to make the decisions that is equitable for everyone, regardless of where you live in the state of California. So thank you all very much, and we are adjourned. Thank you.