Nearly $1 billion in funds left unspent by centers for disabled Californians
By Emily Alpert Reyes; Staff Writer
August 20, 2024
Nearly $1 billion allocated for regional agencies that purchase supportive services for Californians with developmental disabilities went unspent in a recent year and was ultimately returned to the state, even as some disabled people and their families said they needed more help.
California provides assistance to people with autism and other developmental disabilities through a system of nonprofits called regional centers, which are contracted with the California Department of Developmental Services. Twenty-one of them exist across the state, each serving a distinct area. More than 400,000 California children and adults are served through the regional centers annually.
The system has been criticized for persistent gaps in spending on services for Californians of different races and in different regions. Families have complained it can be difficult to navigate.
Even after Californians get the green light from regional centers for services, that assistance may not ultimately be provided if staffing agencies or other service providers cannot find workers to do the job. In recent years, regional centers have spent roughly two-thirds of the amount they have authorized for supportive services, according to an analysis of state data provided by the Assn. of Regional Center Agencies.
If the money meant for purchasing supportive services goes unspent at the regional centers, the funds that were allocated are eventually “reverted” to the state. That sum increased more than ninefold in three years, soaring to more than $978 million in the budget year that ended in summer 2022, from $108 million in 2018-19.
In total, nearly $8.9 billion was allocated to regional centers to purchase services in 2021-22. So for every $10 allocated to regional centers for services, more than $1 was ultimately reverted in 2021-22, according to a Times analysis of figures provided by the state. The 11% reversion rate was more than three times the percentage that had been reverted in the previous year.
That same year, 30% of …
[READ THE COMPLETE ARTICLE HERE]