California · regional centre vendor lists
A count your centre has not published, taken entirely from the vendor list your centre publishes. It compares the organisations you fund to deliver specialised therapeutic services before a child turns three against the ones you fund to deliver them afterwards.
| Regional centre | Up to 3 | 3 and over | Both | Continuity |
|---|
Two centres show this is not fixed. Redwood Coast funds 42 of its 53 birth-to-three organisations to keep serving children afterwards, and Golden Gate 23 of 150. Eleven other centres are at or near zero. Same statute, same service codes, an order of magnitude apart — which places the difference in local vendorization practice rather than in state law.
What this does not show. It covers the regional centre funding line only. After age three a great deal of therapy moves to the school district under IDEA Part B and to private insurance under the SB 946 mandate, and neither appears in a vendor list. A provider who keeps seeing the same child on insurance needs no code 117 vendorization and is simply absent from this count.
So this is a count of how a funding pathway narrows. It is not a claim that children lose their therapists, and it should not be read as one.
Where a centre publishes service categories in words rather than numeric codes, those words were mapped onto the verified code table; phrases that were plainly relevant but whose code could not be verified were left uncounted rather than guessed at.
If you work on this
The third birthday is one of six seams. The others — entry, authorised versus received, the three-payer standoff, appeals, and twenty-two — with what the law assigns at each, what California’s own numbers show happens instead, and who stands there now.