AB 2737 makes a narrow, technical amendment to Section 95016 of the Government Code: it replaces the gendered phrase “his or her” with the singular gender‑neutral pronoun “their.” The bill does not alter the substance of the statutory requirements for evaluation, assessment, family participation, or interagency coordination under the California Early Intervention Services Act.
Although cosmetic, the edit intersects with an existing statutory framework that requires timely, comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluations, family‑directed assessments, and sharing of evaluation results between regional centers and local educational agencies (LEAs). Because the section also ties procedures and timelines to federal Part C of IDEA and to regulations adopted under Section 95028, the update carries modest downstream implications for forms, regulatory text, and agency guidance that implement those requirements.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill substitutes the singular gender‑neutral pronoun “their” for “his or her” in Government Code Section 95016(a). It does not add, remove, or change the statutory duties regarding evaluations, assessments, or interagency coordination already described in that section.
Who It Affects
Primary operational stakeholders are regional centers and local educational agencies that carry out Part C early intervention evaluations and assessments; families of infants and toddlers eligible for services; and state agencies responsible for regulations and forms under Section 95028.
Why It Matters
The change aligns statutory language with modern drafting conventions and reduces potential gendered phrasing issues in agency forms and guidance. Practically, agencies will need to review and may update policies, paperwork, and regulatory cross‑references to ensure internal consistency, even though programmatic requirements remain the same.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2737 is a single, targeted text change to Section 95016 of the Government Code. The only explicit edit in the bill is replacing the gendered phrase “his or her” with the singular gender‑neutral pronoun “their.” The bill identifies this as a nonsubstantive, technical change; it makes no attempt to change eligibility, timelines, or the scope of services described in the existing statute.
Section 95016, as it stands and as retained by this bill, requires that every infant or toddler referred for early intervention receive a timely, comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation to determine eligibility. The statute further requires an assessment by qualified personnel that includes a family interview, identifies the child’s strengths and needs, specifies appropriate services, and documents family resources, priorities, and concerns.
It also states that family assessments must be family‑directed and voluntary, and that families must be afforded the opportunity to participate in all eligibility and service decisions.The section directs that evaluations and assessments be shared and used between regional centers, LEAs, and other agencies providing services, “as appropriate.” It assigns responsibility for implementing these requirements to regional centers and LEAs (or their designees) and ties procedural specifics and timelines to the federal Part C provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and to state regulations to be adopted under Section 95028. In short, AB 2737 alters language but leaves the operational framework — including interagency sharing, family direction, and regulatory delegation — intact.Because the statute relies on federal Part C standards and on implementing regulations, the practical effect of this technical edit will be limited to housekeeping: agencies will likely update statutory citations in internal materials, forms, and regulatory text to reflect uniform, gender‑neutral drafting.
The bill does not create new entitlements or shift responsibilities between the state and local service providers.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2737 amends Government Code Section 95016 by changing the phrase “his or her” to the singular gender‑neutral pronoun “their”; the Legislature describes the change as nonsubstantive and technical.
Section 95016 continues to require a timely, comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation for every referred infant or toddler to determine eligibility for early intervention services.
The required assessment must be conducted by qualified personnel, include a family interview, identify child strengths and needs, and document family resources, priorities, concerns, and supports needed to enhance family capacity.
Evaluations and assessments must be shared and utilized between the regional center and the local educational agency and any other agency providing services “as appropriate.”, Regional centers and LEAs are responsible for implementing Section 95016, and the statute’s procedures and timelines must be consistent with Part C of the federal IDEA and with regulations adopted under Section 95028.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Textual substitution to eliminate gendered pronoun
The bill makes one discrete textual substitution within Section 95016: replacing “his or her” with “their.” Mechanically, this is a drafting clean‑up intended to modernize language and reduce gendered phrasing. Practically, it is self‑described as nonsubstantive, so it does not reallocate duties or change legal standards; its main consequence is administrative—updating statutory references and any internal templates that mirror the statutory language.
Evaluation and family‑directed assessment requirements
Subsection (a) codifies the core service delivery standards: a timely, comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation and an assessment by qualified personnel that includes a family interview and documents the child’s strengths, needs, and appropriate services, plus the family’s resources and priorities. This subsection also reiterates that family assessments must be family‑directed and voluntary, and that families must be given the chance to participate in eligibility and service decisions. For implementers, the paragraph is the operative statement of what must happen before and after a referral for Part C services.
Interagency use and sharing of evaluations
The statute directs that evaluations and assessments be shared and utilized between regional centers, LEAs, and other agencies providing services where appropriate. That cross‑use is framed as a practical coordination duty rather than a mandatory data‑sharing regime, but it raises operational questions for consent and record‑keeping, since multiple entities will rely on a single evaluation to determine eligibility and services.
Implementation responsibility and regulatory delegation
Subsection (b) assigns implementation responsibility to regional centers and LEAs (or designees) and requires that procedures, requirements, and timelines align with federal Part C of IDEA and with state regulations to be adopted under Section 95028. The practical implication is that statutory language sets standards while much of the operational detail — deadlines, forms, and specific processes — will be furnished in regulations and agency guidance.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Infants and toddlers eligible for early intervention: the statute’s continued emphasis on comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluations and family‑directed assessments preserves procedural protections intended to identify needs and services early.
- Families of referred children: the explicit requirement that assessments be family‑directed and voluntary and that families participate in eligibility and service decisions maintains family control over assessment content and service planning.
- Advocacy and compliance professionals: the gender‑neutral language reduces exposure to complaints about outdated drafting and simplifies inclusive language compliance across agency materials.
Who Bears the Cost
- Regional centers and local educational agencies (LEAs): they retain statutory responsibility for implementation and may incur administrative costs to update forms, training materials, and internal policies to reflect the changed wording and to ensure consistency with regulations.
- State agencies responsible for regulations under Section 95028: they must ensure regulatory text, guidance, and model forms remain aligned with the statute; any substantive regulatory updates requested by stakeholders could generate workload and fiscal implications.
- Service providers and assessment personnel: while the bill does not change assessment content, providers may need minor procedural updates (forms, consent language) and training to reflect family‑directed assessment language and clarify interagency sharing practices.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between symbolic, inclusive statutory drafting and the real work of service delivery: AB 2737 modernizes language without changing substantive standards, but the law continues to rely on federal Part C rules and state regulations for implementation; that delegation preserves flexibility yet risks inconsistent practice, administrative burden, and unresolved privacy and consent questions that the statute itself does not answer.
On its face AB 2737 is a drafting cleanup: a single pronoun swap that the Legislature labels nonsubstantive. That cosmetic description, however, coexists with a statutory section that delegates important operational detail to federal Part C timelines and to regulations to be adopted under Section 95028.
The bill leaves open who will bear the administrative burden of aligning forms, intake protocols, and consent language — tasks that often fall to regional centers, LEAs, and state regulatory staff with limited incremental funding.
The statute requires interagency sharing of evaluations “as appropriate” but does not define the mechanics of data sharing, consent, or confidentiality. Those are live implementation questions: IDEA Part C, HIPAA, and FERPA intersect when health, regional center, and educational records overlap.
Absent clearer statutory markers, agencies will have to reconcile privacy protections with coordination goals in regulations and memoranda of understanding, which may produce variability across regions. Additionally, terms in the statute — “timely,” “qualified personnel,” and “family‑directed” — are conceptually meaningful but operationally elastic; the bill does not tighten those definitions, so disputes over timelines, workforce qualifications, and what counts as family‑directed practice will remain matters for regulation and practice guidance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.