Search
By Julie Schurman, Esq., Director of Public Policy, The Arc & UCP California Collaboration
The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) has introduced a proposal known as Equitable Access to Intake and Services as part of this year’s deferred budget trailer bill process. While California’s state budget has already been enacted, several complex policy proposals were intentionally deferred until August to allow for additional legislative review, stakeholder input, and public testimony before any final decisions are made.
On August 5, 2026 the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Human Services held a public hearing on the proposal, giving legislators, DDS, advocates, regional centers, self-advocates, family members, and service providers an opportunity to discuss the proposal and ask questions before moving forward.
Why was this proposal introduced?
According to DDS, the proposal is intended to make California’s developmental services system more equitable and consistent across all 21 regional centers.
Today, regional centers use different practices when determining whether an applicant meets the statutory definitions of a developmental disability and substantial disability. Likewise, after a person becomes eligible for services, regional centers use the Client Development Evaluation Report (CDER) differently to assess an individual’s strengths and support needs.
DDS argues that these variations can result in inconsistent experiences depending on where someone lives. The proposal seeks to establish more standardized statewide processes while maintaining the individualized, person-centered planning required under the Lanterman Act.
What would the proposal do?
The proposal contains two major components.
-
- Create a standardized intake eligibility assessment
The proposal would establish a single statewide assessment process for determining whether applicants meet the existing eligibility criteria for regional center services.
Importantly, DDS emphasized throughout the hearing that this does not change who is eligible for services. Instead, it standardizes how the existing eligibility criteria are evaluated.
The proposal also requires stakeholder engagement before any assessment process is finalized, and the Legislature would have to approve the final assessment before implementation.
2. Replace the CDER with a modern strengths and needs evaluation
The second component would replace the current Client Development Evaluation Report (CDER) with a new strengths- and needs-based assessment.
DDS noted that the CDER is now approximately 50 years old and has undergone only minor revisions during that time. Chair Corey Jackson observed during the hearing that our understanding of disability, assessment practices, and service delivery has evolved significantly over the past five decades, making it appropriate to examine whether a more modern approach is warranted.
The proposed evaluation would be designed to provide better information about an individual’s strengths, goals, and support needs to assist Individual Program Plan (IPP) teams during person-centered planning.
What would not change?
One of the recurring themes throughout the hearing was clarifying what the proposal does not do.
DDS repeatedly stated that the proposal:
-
-
- Does not change the statutory definitions of developmental disability or substantial disability.
- Does not replace the Individual Program Plan (IPP).
- Does not determine what services a person receives.
-
DDS explained that, much like the CDER today, the new assessment would simply provide information to support the IPP process. Decisions about services would continue to be made collaboratively by the individual and their IPP team.
Key themes from the hearing:
A number of important themes emerged during the legislative hearing.
Chair Corey Jackson emphasized that there is no assessment tool currently being adopted. Rather, the Legislature is being asked whether DDS should move forward with developing and studying a new assessment process. Some have referred to the proposal as functioning much like a “study bill,” since the actual assessment tool has not yet been selected or developed.
DDS indicated that there is no preconceived decision regarding what the eventual assessment will look like. The Department stated it intends to examine assessment models used in other states, consider whether an existing tool could be adapted, evaluate whether California should develop its own assessment, or potentially combine elements of multiple approaches. DDS stressed that stakeholder input will play an important role throughout that process.
Several advocates also noted that numerous assessment models exist nationally and encouraged DDS to carefully examine those experiences before selecting any approach.
At the same time, advocates emphasized that any future assessment must be carefully designed and implemented because it could have significant impacts on individuals and families if not done correctly.
The hearing also highlighted the importance of ensuring any future assessment is both valid and reliable, meaning different evaluators should reach consistent conclusions when assessing the same individual.
What happens next?
The August 5 hearing represented the beginning of a broader public consultation process. The Department has committed to working with stakeholders to develop and evaluate possible assessment approaches before returning to the Legislature for approval of any final assessment tool. Additional opportunities for public engagement are expected throughout that process.
The Arc of California encourages everyone interested in the proposal to review the available materials, watch the legislative hearing, and participate in future stakeholder discussions as the proposal continues to develop.