Report 2015-501 Recommendations
When an audit is completed and a report is issued, auditees must provide the State Auditor with information regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year. Additionally, Senate Bill 1452 (Chapter 452, Statutes of 2006), requires auditees who have not implemented recommendations after one year, to report to us and to the Legislature why they have not implemented them or to state when they intend to implement them. Below, is a listing of each recommendation the State Auditor made in the report referenced and a link to the most recent response from the auditee addressing their progress in implementing the recommendation and the State Auditor's assessment of auditee's response based on our review of the supporting documentation.
Recommendations in Report 2015-501: California Department of Developmental Services: It Can Do More to Ensure That Regional Centers Comply With the Legislature's Cost-Containment Measures Under the Lanterman Act (Release Date: July 2015)
| Recommendations to Legislature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Number | Recommendation | Status |
| 1 | If the Legislature wishes to better guard against future cost increases under the Lanterman Act, it should amend existing law to require that planning teams document, and that regional centers retain documentation of, vendor cost considerations when they offer comparable services that meet the consumer's needs. Specifically, for consumer needs that the planning team decides will be addressed by a vendor, the Legislature should require the planning team to document the following:
|
No Action Taken |
| 2 | To further ensure that the planning team consistently chooses the least costly vendor when required under state law, the Legislature should direct Developmental Services to audit compliance with the documentation requirements suggested in the previous recommendation. |
No Action Taken |
| 3 | To ensure that regional centers and their planning teams are using consistent criteria when determining whether multiple vendors offer comparable services, the Legislature should define the phrase "comparable service" for the purpose of the 2009 amendment to the Lanterman Act. One way the Legislature could do this would be to define "comparable service" as a service of the type required in the consumer's treatment plan and that the planning team has reviewed and found as meeting the needs of the consumer. |
No Action Taken |