Report 2021-120 Recommendation 8 Responses

Report 2021-120: In-Home Respite Services: The Department of Developmental Services Has Not Adequately Reduced Barriers to Some Families' Use of In-Home Respite Services (Release Date: August 2022)

Recommendation #8 To: Developmental Services, Department of

DDS should review the policies of all 21 regional centers by October 2022 to ensure that they do not contain provisions imposing overall limits on the amount of in-home respite service hours authorized for families to receive each quarter and require revisions as necessary.

1-Year Agency Response

DDS has completed the actions described in the Department's response to audit report.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

DDS recently informed us that it maintains its original response to our finding and believes that the policies that impose a limit are consistent with the statute and case law, so long as the policies include exceptions processes. As we stated in our audit report, we disagree with DDS's practice of approving policies that specify a limit on the amount of in-home respite hours as long as there is an exceptions process to authorize additional hours. Although we acknowledge that case law and statute require review and consideration of each individual's needs and circumstances, we state that, because the Legislature removed hourly caps, policies that reference limits on respite hours are inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature and risk creating the impression among consumers, families, and regional center staff that an hourly cap is still in place. Moreover, such policies create additional barriers to families accessing respite services by imposing an hour limit and requiring a family to seek an exception. Thus, we stand by our conclusion that an exceptions process is not sufficient to comply with the Legislature's intent in repealing the hourly cap.

6-Month Agency Response

DDS has completed the actions agreed to in the Department's response to audit report.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

DDS recently informed us that it maintains its original response to our finding and believes that the policies that impose a limit are consistent with the statute and case law, so long as the policies include exceptions processes. As we stated in our audit report, we disagree with DDS's practice of approving policies that specify a limit on the amount of in-home respite hours as long as there is an exceptions process to authorize additional hours. Although we acknowledge that case law and statute require review and consideration of each individual's needs and circumstances, we state that, because the Legislature removed hourly caps, policies that reference limits on respite hours are inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature and risk creating the impression among consumers, families, and regional center staff that an hourly cap is still in place. Moreover, such policies create additional barriers to families accessing respite services by imposing an hour limit and requiring a family to seek an exception. Thus, we stand by our conclusion that an exceptions process is not sufficient to comply with the Legislature's intent in repealing the hourly cap.

60-Day Agency Response

DDS reviewed the respite policies of the 21 regional centers, and has identified that 11 of those policies impose either quarterly or monthly limits on the number of authorized service hours. Each of these 11 policies also provides allowable exception language, as described in our initial response to the audit report.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

As we stated in our audit report, we disagree with DDS's practice of approving policies that specify a limit on the amount of in-home respite hours as long as there is an exceptions process to authorize additional hours. Although we acknowledge that case law and statute require review and consideration of each individual's needs and circumstances, we state that, because the Legislature removed hourly caps, policies that reference limits on respite hours are inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature and risk creating the impression among consumers, families, and regional center staff that an hourly cap is still in place. Moreover, such policies create additional barriers to families accessing respite services by imposing an hour limit and requiring a family to seek an exception. Thus, we stand by our conclusion that an exceptions process is not sufficient to comply with the Legislature's intent in repealing the hourly cap.

All Recommendations in 2021-120

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.