Si alguien necesita interpretación en español, haga clic en el globo blanco en la parte inferior de la pantalla con la etiqueta "Interpretation." Luego haga clic en “Spanish” y seleccione "Mute original audio.”

La presentación de hoy se publicará en el sitio web del DDS en: https://www.dds.ca.gov/initiatives/ds-task-force/

Today’s materials are posted on the DDS website at: https://www.dds.ca.gov/initiatives/ds-task-force/

I’m glad you are doing this and we’re all fired up to participate.

Thank you Judy, I am very confused too.

What would be the best way to offer up topics to be discussed at future OAT meetings?

The work of this workgroup and system reform have been taken over by the groups working on specific reforms in the budget. This is something for us to do while we’re here.

Please email any suggestions you may have to DSTaskForce@dds.ca.gov

I am assuming that Early Start is not included in this survey. What are the plans to look at Early Start and ABA services?

YES, I also thought that I was attending the wrong meeting too.

I think this presentation at the VAC and the Pacs makes sense, hopefully we can get back on track to discuss oversight and accountability/ in this workgroup ..

Outcome measures and quality indicators would have made a lot of sense for this group. But I am happy for the survey and happy to give my best effort.

What I said was that I thought I was confused, because this meeting is about accountability and responsibility, which at this time is something urgent, as Judy Mark said, I am not saying that this is not important, but who really has the responsibility of these providers ? Shouldn't we be talking about that?

Since the DD system needs much more accountability and oversight, I’d love to see the following topics discussed in the future: 1) Fair hearings at RCs - how are they handled, why do so many people withdraw their requests; 2) Special Incident Reports - What are the follow ups when people are hurt? What are the consequences?; 3) 4731 complaints - how are they handled and resolved? 4) Intimidation and retaliation against self-advocates and families - how do we eliminate this and respond appropriately? This is just off the top of my head and there are so many others.

Harry- as a provider, we have seen the same thing. Our largest area of need is staffing due to the hiring crisis, which we all understand is due to a variety of issues. However, as you also mentioned, with low, fixed rates, we cannot compete with other businesses who can increase what they charge to continue doing business.

The problem is that we all know that we need funding relief NOW, not down the road, especially when the rate study identified the need to address our underfunding years ago

There is room for helpful information even within existing funding. I can’t tell you whether better benefits are better for retention and higher wages for recruiting, I’m just working on that basis. It would be good to have that insight, as an example. A survey should help answer questions like that.

We ask. Maybe half of people leaving tell us. maybe 25% that tell us why they are leaving do so for a better paying job.

We have lots of anecdotal data of people that have agreed to be hired over the past year, but leave before they start citing getting a better paying job

This is with new hires

Very good points, Shannon...

DSPWorkforce@dds.ca.gov

Sorry I had to step out for a few to take a phone call.

How each regional center is handling Social recreational services, who is making sure that they are listen the community?

Recommended topics: How can we better evaluate providers and regional centers on real outcomes and make that information available to individuals?

Thanks for sharing this accountability issue so passionately Elizabeth!

Data is flawed when reporting about RC fair hearing withdrawal. When families/consumers request a form to withdraw from a hearing, they are given DS 1804, "Notice of Resolution." Even if it is reported that withdrawal was due to emotional or financial hardship, and no resolution was reached, it is still reported as"satisfactorily resolved." This is just one example of flawed data in the hearing process.

What Elizabeth is saying is very important for we lost a client in the OCRC area waiting for services, he passed away waiting.

Transparency must be a condition of contract. The fact that regional centers do not have to conform to CA Public Records Act must be further addressed.

Right, that’s what I thought we were doing!

To Judy's point, in Early Start, each regional center selects the evaluation tools that are used to determine eligibility. These are very different in each regional center, therefore, a child may or may not be eligible for services depending on which regional center does the evaluation. Accountability would be better if everyone used the same evaluation tools to determine eligibility.

I think if we can learn to describe quality, that can be public. That would be really helpful transparency.

Right, Jacquie. We’re accountable for paperwork and compliance.

Accountability with Vendorization: Require publication of vendorization data by regional center, including process of vendoring, number of days to get vendored, reasons for denials, if vendored with other regional centers, categories of service...

The DS Task Force Workgroup Recommendations that were screen shared are available on the DDS website here: https://www.dds.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Workgroup_Recommendations_Handout.pdf

Agree about the Stanford report (SIDDLAPP) being an important tool for us.

I agree we look at accountability with Vendorization process & timelines & actual outcomes