March 12, 2026 · Budget Sub3 · 16,377 words · 11 speakers · 317 segments
Budget subcommittee number three on Health and Human Services will come to order. We are going to begin in as a subcommittee. Whenever we have one of the other members, I will call the roll. However, we expect no votes today, so the roll call will be for quorum purposes only. I am filling in for Chair Menjewar today, and we have a hard stop in 90 minutes. And so we are going to try, I think these items, many of them, are necessarily brief, and we want to be able to allow public comment. If for any reason we get bogged down, we will actually carry over the remaining agenda items and public comment to the next hearing. But it is our hope to accommodate it here. And I will sort of make a judgment by a show of hands as to how many people want to offer public comment as to what the time frame is for doing that. When we get to that point on the agenda. Today's topics for discussion are in two areas, the California Department of Aging, where we have three issues, and the California Department of Social Services, where we have 10 issues. We have one stakeholder issue. And then we have public comment. And we will solicit the public comment after all items. So we're not doing it after each of the individual 14 items. We will do it after we get through all 14 items. And just in case, even if you're listening and you can't attend, the committee welcomes your comments. So if we don't get to public comment today and it's urgent or you're watching remotely and can't attend, we would accept your comments in writing to the Budget subcommittee or through the Budget Committee's webpage on the Senate website. Just make sure that we do that. So we are going to begin with issue number one, which is an overview of the California Department of Aging. And we will have with us three people. The director well, actually, we have four because hopefully one is just here for questions. But nevertheless, we have the director of the Department of Aging. We have the deputy director. We have a representative of the Legislative Analyst, Juan Trotter. We have the Department of Finance, Jennifer Ramirez. And so we will move to to item number one, the overview. And we will begin with the director of the department. And we'll go to the legislative analyst. Then we'll go to the Department of Finance. Welcome to the committee.
Good morning, Senator Laird, Susan Demorris, director of the California Department of Aging. And I'm joined by Nicole Shimasaka, who's our chief deputy director. The first question on the agenda today relates to the Master Plan for Aging and the progress that the State of California is making on our 10 year blueprint. We're pleased to report we're at the midpoint of the master Plan for aging. We're at the five year mark, and at the end of January, we issued a report to the legislature. This is our fifth annual report highlighting our notable achievements from the prior year, 2025. For the sake of brevity, I will condense our achievements into three areas. The first, we're extremely proud of the local leadership that's been developed over the five years of the Master Plan for aging. We concluded a round of local aging and disability action plans last year with funding provided by the legislature. 21 entities in 30 communities have now done their own local plans, including in your district. San Benito, Santa Cruz and San Luis Obispo. All produced local action plans. The second area of note is research to inform public policy. Last year we concluded an home and community based services gap analysis, mapping all 58 counties in the state and determining where we have gaps in services. And we did that in partnership with the Department of Health Care Services. They led the medi cal work of the HCBS gap analysis. We also have embarked on an older adults in the workforce report that we're working on. Currently. We're doing that jointly with AARP and the community college chancellor's office. And the third area would be long term services and supports financing, again with funding provided by the legislature and approved by the governor.
We.
We will be issuing a comprehensive report to the legislature as early as June. Those are. And then in addition, for the Master Plan for Aging, I think we're. From the outset, we've relied on stakeholder engagement. We're so pleased. We've had tremendous interest in all of our stakeholder advisory committees. We currently have 150 stakeholders contributing to those six committees. And just this year, we stood up for the first time our aging and disability lived experience Advisory Board where we're hearing directly from consumers. I'll stop there on our MPA progress.
Right. Thank you. And you're here for questions?
No, I.
Excuse me.
I am here from the California Department of Aging to present on the other issues.
But not this issue.
No, not this issue.
Just checking. That's the point. Okay, then, let's go to the legislative analyst.
Good morning, Senator. Laird Juwan Charter. Let's dive office. So, as noted in the agenda, Department of Aging's overall budget does remain relatively flat year over year. However, we would note, as was also noted in the agenda, HR1 will reduce federal support for calfresh administrative costs beginning October of this year. So we just want to reiterate that this in turn will place added fiscal pressure on both the state and the counties to cover this change in the share of administrative funding.
Thank you. The Department of Finance.
Good morning. Jennifer Ramirez, Department of Finance. Nothing further to add.
Okay, then I have a couple of questions, but first, we've got a quorum. So I would ask if you would please call the roll.
Senators Laird here.
Laird here.
Grove, Weber Pearson. Weber Pearson here. We have a quorum.
Thank you very much. And as I said at the outset, we don't intend to have any votes today, but it's important to establish an official quorum then to move on to questions. Let me ask the director. I know we had some background in the staff report, and you mentioned you're halfway through the master plan. Really, overall, what progress do you think you are making toward the goals that are in the master plan? So that, I mean, what has actually happened that's noticeable or transformational in the first half?
Thank you for that question, Senator. There are different metrics that we use. We're committed to public transparency and accountability. We have initiated 300 initiatives since the start of the Master Plan for aging. About 3/4 of those have been completed and about one fourth are still underway. The state has invested nearly $1 billion, all told, in all five bold goals of the Master Plan for Aging since inception. And then in addition to that, we use other measures, local leaderships, stakeholder engagement. These are things that future proof the Master Plan for Aging. And we will be evaluating our work. We currently have an evaluation underway that we'll be able to share at the end of this year that measures us in all of those categories.
And if you were somebody that was aging in California, not a senator, how would you experience some of those things? How would you see that implementing the plan has resulted in something for them?
That is an excellent question. So while we have the 300 initiatives, those typically are programmatic. So an individual may see a new program or a new benefit that didn't exist previously. So to the person, there might be services that they receive or services that have been sustained. Then there is the climate and the environment. A big piece of the Master Plan for Aging is combating ageism and ableism in our state and building communities in a state that supports aging in place. And so that's where our local aging and disability action plans have come in. And then raising awareness about the needs of older adults and connecting and linking them to services has been a big focus as well.
Well, and if I were to ask the global question, which is the baby boom bubble has really moved into aging and it has changed the demand for services in number and type. How would you feel we are doing against addressing that demographic bubble?
So, yes, the numbers are certainly climbing and it's not just the increased volume, but it's the greater complexity, the greater diversity and the affordability issues in particular that older adults encounter. So in terms of how an individual is faring, the master plan is for all ages and abilities. So we have many older adults who rely on Medi Cal and they may have a different experience than somebody who's in the missing middle and does not qualify for home and community based services under the Medi Cal program. We have Medicare beneficiaries, and that's a federal program. We've made inroads with veterans benefits. So the experience, I often say with 10 million people who are 60 plus, their experiences will be varied across the the state. It's not a homogenous group. And so we have varied experiences across the state.
Great. And I appreciate the partnership because I'm chairing the Select Committee on Aging LGBT Californians. And we will be doing a select committee hearing in the next month. And you've done a report in a study and we really look forward to sort of airing those issues. And then one last global question. In the 14 items, even though a majority of them in the Department of Social Services, not in the Department of Aging, the impacts of HR1 are in many of them. How would you describe the impacts of H R1 to your area and your programs?
And we're very excited about your select committee as well and looking forward to that work.
Thank you.
In terms of HR1, we have no direct impacts to our department. But part of the Master Plan for Aging is it's the whole of all of government, all of society. So we can't deny that there are direct and devastating impacts to other departments and programs that serve and support older adults. And we're deeply concerned about those impacts. And as far as the Master Plan for Aging goes, this is a year where, with reduced state revenues, but also the federal climate where we're really grateful that we have a plan in place, where we have five bold goals and we can keep our focus on housing, health equity, caregiving and affordability for older adults. And I can't imagine in this environment if we didn't have a, if we weren't five years into our Master Plan for Aging to have guiding principles and values to stand.
And so do I deduce that there are real impacts to your whatever you would call it, base of people you serve. But we might hear them separately in cuts to medical care or in cuts to food assistance or in cuts to housing assistance. And so we will be addressing those. They're just not part of your budget directly.
Exactly, exactly. And being a department in the Health and Human Services Agency, I'm very familiar with what Department of Social Services and Healthcare Services and others are experiencing now. And you'll get to hear more from them as the experts.
Great. And then before we move on from this item, because that exhausts my questions and right now that's the entire questions of the subcommittee, let me ask if the Department of Finance or the Legislative Analyst have any comments on what we've been talking about in the questions
Juan Charter list of Anna's office. I would just say that as we kind of see these pressures from, as you mentioned with HR1 throughout the Greater budget and Department of Social Services on things like food programs, while it doesn't have direct impacts on the Department of Aging, there are these kind of downstream effects as this will put further pressure on kind of other nutrition programs that this population does utilize.
Okay.
Anything from the Department of Finance?
Jennifer Ramirez, Department of Finance. Nothing further to add.
Okay, well, thank you. I appreciate that presentation and that discussion. And we will stay on some of these issues as they move forward and we will get into them in individual pieces of the budget as well. So we'll move to item number two, which is the Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program Modernization, or better known as hicap. And I know we have the Assistant Director and then once again the LAO and the Department of Finance. And so let me ask if you'd like to make opening comments.
Yes, and I will also keep it brief. Good morning, Senator Laird. The Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program, or hicap, is a program designed to educate and empower older adults with free and objective Medicare counseling so they better understand their health insurance options. Currently, less than 1% of beneficiaries in California receive high cap services, despite there being over 7 million individuals who qualify. The California Department of Aging requests 5 million ongoing from the Special High Cap Fund to better support local high caps in serving more individuals by adding between one to four paid Medicare counselors per site and making prior year investments permanent, which includes volunteer coordinators. Specifically, approval of this request will allow local HICAPs to increase engagement by reducing customer wait times, allow HICAPs to be properly staffed to meet increased demand for services, promote equitable access to services by prioritizing recruitment of bilingual staff and and improve the Quality and consistency of services through standardizing training across all HICAPs. This investment will allow HICAPs to double the number of unduplicated clients counseled and increase the statewide penetration rate to align with the national standard.
Thank you very much. Ask the legislative analysts for comments. And you can move the microphone right up to you if you'd like.
Appreciate that. Jawan Char Aleo. We are continuing to review this bcp, but we would acknowledge that this request does not include a request for general fund. But at this time we don't have anything additional to raise.
Okay.
Department of Finance, Jennifer Ramirez, Department of Finance. Nothing further to add.
Okay, well, the legislative analyst sort of with the comment was one of the questions I was going to ask, but clearly this is from the fund and this is not a general fund impact.
That is correct.
Okay, and then the other thing I was going to ask is just year to year changes. What are the year to year changes in the program that are embodied in this request? I mean, what is different from what we have in the budget year than we have in the current year?
So in the current year we currently are staffing, this is a program that's heavily reliant on volunteers. And what we've seen year over year is that it's more challenging to retain those volunteers and the training they have to go through is growing more complex, which is even more challenging to get and retain volunteers. So previously we did receive funding for the volunteer coordinator full time at each site. This adds paid counselors to the workforce, so it moves away from such a heavy reliance on the volunteers to do the work. And it has permanent full time staff members that would be able to offer that counseling and, and go through the complex training and so forth. Another compounding issue is that every year there's more beneficiaries that are available for the service. So without addressing some of these issues, our numbers will actually get worse. They won't remain stagnant, they'll get worse. And so this is to try to get ahead of that and to counsel more individuals so that they're aware of their options.
Okay, I appreciate that because this is one of those programs I hear about out in the District. I know people are utilizing it, it makes a difference and we make references to it regularly because people are struggling with the decisions.
Yes.
They're making. Let me ask if the legislative analyst or the Department of Finance have anything they wish to add before we move to the next item.
Nothing further. Odd.
Nothing further.
Okay, then we're going to move to item number three, which is the meal programs for seniors and it's the same panel. So let me ask the Deputy Director if you would like to make some opening comments.
Yes, I also just have brief comments on this one. The California Department of Aging serves as a state unit on aging and we administer the Older American act programs throughout a network of 33 area agencies on aging. The Department's largest Older American act program is nutrition and we receive approximately $124 million in federal funds annually and serve roughly 21 million meals. Assembly Bill 1476 updates the Older American Act Title 3C nutrition program to require increased oversight and support of the area agencies administering to go meals. To go meals are defined as meals either picked up by or delivered to participants 60 years of age or older. Assembly Bill 1476 instructs the Department to support, monitor and train area agencies in implementing virtual congregate to go meal programs which addresses social isolation and food insecurity. Approval of this request will allow the Department to lead ongoing monitoring, training and technical assistance of the Virtual Congress meal program.
Legislative Analyst Juanjara Leo we have nothing further to raise at this time.
And finance.
Jennifer Ramirez, Department of Finance Nothing further then.
I thank you. I have a few questions and one is the obvious one which is in our overall food programs. Even before HR1, we were experiencing various challenges. I mean during COVID all the congregate meal programs were closed, including the senior meal programs that are administered by you. And we have funded food banks to come in and try to fill the gaps. And the gaps still exist. And now we have SNAP coming, the cuts from the federal government. How do you feel the recommendations in front of us fill in the gaps that are created either pre existing or created by HR1.
So this request in particular, I don't think that we have an answer to fill the gaps. I think that the, the gaps that are going to be created. I don't think that there's unilaterally, you know, that there's a response to that. I do think this particular BCP is going to help individuals that cannot participate in those congregate meals have challenges leaving their homes, have to take, you know, medication with their meals. It'll help them to not have that social isolation and it'll help them to also have a meal. I think that these are steps in the right direction to address some of these problems. Problems. I don't think that this unilaterally will address what is happening with hiv.
But let me dwell down on it a little because your description about people being at home just sort of Tees up Meals on Wheels as sort of the program that would respond to that is sort of focusing on additional assistance or beefing up the Meals on Wheels program, a response that you have considered.
So with the we refer to it as Modernizing Older Californians act, it was $186 million investment that the department received from the legislature and the governor in 2223. And that one of our area agency's prominent subcontractors is Meals on Wheels. And that investment was really addressed to help with what was perceived to what determined to be a nutrition cliff when the COVID funding ended. And so we were very fortunate throughout Covid that we received a $50 million investment to bolster the nutrition infrastructure across the state. Because something that was also realized at the time was a lot of money was coming in which was very exciting. We weren't necessarily mobilized in a way to use all of that. So. So there was a subsequent investment from the home and community based services investment that allowed a lot of our AAA's directly or their subcontractors to go ahead and increase their infrastructure. So when the $186 million investment came from modernizing OCA, they were more equipped and prepared to then utilize that funding effectively and provide more meals. Statewide. We have seen an increase in meals starting in the COVID era and moving forward to today widely, in part due to that investment that has not tapered. Yes.
Let me just drill down for a second on that. Because that investment, wasn't that primarily for capital stuff for equipment and buildings and different things?
There were two investments. There was one specific to nutrition infrastructure in the $50 million and then the $186 million was. It was for both supportive services and nutrition. 126 million of the 186 was for the nutrition.
And was that built into the base so that continues or was that a one time thing and we're running out of it?
It's a five year investment that the area Agencies on aging will have until June 2029 to exhaust. And at that point it will be over.
But in 2829 that will be a major issue for us. Although it might be a major issue if we are having unmet needs due to food pressures that are created by the federal programs. Are there any comments on this from. For the record, for those of you at home, they both shook their heads with a nonverbal moment. Before we leave the senior programs and I have you here, let me just ask about one AAA issue and it overlaps with my district, the triple The Area Agency on Aging for San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura county has sort of experienced some problems. And there's a question about the programs that receive the money passing through, that they are not jeopardized by what happens on this. And I happen to be doing legislation, but I was wondering if you would speak to this so that we would know what the state of play is. And Calvary has come in.
Finance Susan demoris, Director of the California Department of Aging. Again, to answer the question, Senator Laird. Yes. There are two planning and service areas in the state PSAs. We've referred to them as PSA 17 in your district includes San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties. And PSA 18 is a standalone Ventura County. Both of those planning and service areas have area Agencies on aging that deliver services to the community. I'm pleased to report that just recently the Ventura County Board of Supervisors reversed their decision and they have decided to retain the AAA and to continue running the AAA as they have done for decades. So I wouldn't say it's a moot issue, but many of the concerns have been resolved as a result of the action by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors. So business as usual.
And when you say you're not sure it's a mood issue, what does that mean? I'm trying to just tease out what still might be an issue or is it good to have the fallback of making sure that that's protected in statute
despite that decision in terms of your legislation. And thank you for your leadership and the bill that you introduced. And we look forward very much to working with you and your staff on that. It no longer applies in Ventura county because the Aging and Disability Resource Connection serving Ventura county, basically we need to
focus on Santa Barbara and San Luis.
Correct?
Correct. And so, yes, your proposed legislation is very important to address the issue in PSA 17 and if this should ever occur again. So in the case of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties, we have a AAA that voluntarily withdrew and we currently have a competitive request for proposal seeking a new community provider to enter the community as the new aaa. We expect to have somebody named by late spring and. And we will be working to transition new AAA provider in that community to make sure that services continue uninterrupted. And we're very much looking forward to reviewing the proposals and selecting a very strong AAA testing.
But it still sounds like it's necessary to make sure that there's some apparatus that the contractors are not left out in the cold during this process.
Yes, so for when we transition from the outgoing AAA to the incoming AAA, the new entity will need to issue RFPs and select their new providers. Specific to the issue in your bill, the Aging and Disability Resource Connections. There is a local community provider Access. Central coast is the Independent Living center that holds the that contract with the Department of Aging and they are doing business as the Central coast. The Aging and Disability Resource Connection of Central Coast. That's a partnership between the Independent Living center and the aaa in those two counties. Their contract is good, well in place. June 30, the end of the state fiscal year, business as usual. And we have notified them that we're able to extend an emergency contract from July 1st through December 31st. Our authority is limited to six month emergency contracts.
That's why if this festered, a bill would be necessary to cover it.
Yes.
And so if there were a change in January of 2027 that might allow that ADRC to continue,
then one follow up question and I just heard as you went rapidly by, that there would be an RFP for services with the new provider. Does that mean if there's an existing service provider, they would have to reapply through an RFP to continue being delivering services in that area?
Agency on Aging when we extend, when we award the contract and enter into the contract with the new entity, they may choose to deliver some of their services in house. They may choose to contract out for services that will be reflected in their rfp. And that is their choice and their option. And I would imagine in these communities that the strong subcontractors will emerge because they have the best reputations and the track record for serving their community. But we can't obligate the new AAA or compel them to work with any local subcontractors. And they may determine it's advantageous to hire staff in house and do some services in house. They may determine it's more advantageous to contract out.
I can see where that is going to cause a bunch of heart attacks. So. But I appreciate your offer to continue to work together on this and we look forward to it. Any further comments on this or any of the aging items? Actually, I forgot to call on the Calvary.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Shelina Narali from the Department of Finance. If I may just add something on the previous item, not on the discussion of the AAA's, but finance would just like to elevate what my colleague at the Department of Aging said. But the AAAs can continue to utilize the remaining 106.6 million within the Modernizing OCA Investment for Nutrition funding, and that includes 37.2 million in the budget year, as mentioned. And just to also reiterate, the funds are available for liquidation through June 30,
2029, but it's liquidation of the funds, not the organization.
Liquidation of the funds.
Good. Just preventing further heart attacks. Great. Well, thank you. We appreciate your additional comments. Any final comment on aging before we move on to the next item then? Thank you. We appreciate you being here with us today and we appreciate the conversation. All these items are being held open and we will see how things develop during the next few months. Thank you. We're going to move to item number four and this is a transition to the Department of Social Services. And presenting is the Deputy Director, Claire Ramsey. And there's no change with the lao. And I show that from the Department of Finance. Thomas Locke will be here. So we're going to move to item number four and ask for your opening comments. Welcome to the committee.
Thank you. Good morning, Chair Laird, I'm Claire Ramsey. I'm one of the Chief Deputy Directors for the Department of Social Services speaking to issue number four, Ensuring access to Medicaid Services. This is a proposal that supports the California Department of Social Services implementation of the new federal requirements under the 2024 Medicaid Access Rule, which was issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Medicaid Services. The rule requires states to establish two new oversight systems for home and community services and for the Department of Social Services. That is for our in Home Supportive Services system. We need to establish a formal grievance process for the program recipients and a statewide critical Incident management and reporting system. The agenda does a very good job describing the proposal. I will just flag. Originally the deadline for implementing the grievance system was July of 2026. That has recently been changed and we now have to implement it by December of 2027. The timeline for the Critical Incident System is the same and it is still July 2027. This proposal specifically requests $2.8 million in fiscal year 2016 for a half year of funding and $5.3 million ongoing to support 28 positions across the Department to implement and administer these new federal requirements. I would also just mention to make sure it's connected. We do also have a premise proposal related to the access rule and this is the continuation of our CMS final rule automation for our case management information and payrolling system, CMIPs and I can give additional information about that for background if helpful. But this is a request for an additional $1.5 million last year. In this current fiscal year we have also received $1.5 million. And this is automation to allow us to stand up the grievance system and the critical incident system. With that I will pause and happy to take any questions.
Thank you very much. Move to the Legislative Analyst.
Juwan Trotter, Legislative Analyst Office so we are continuing to review the level of this request. But we also acknowledge, as was noted earlier, that this workload is related to a federal federal request. But at this time we don't have anything additional to raise.
Okay. Department of Finance, Welcome.
Thank you.
Mr.
Chair.
Thomas Locke, Department of Finance Nothing further to add. Thank you. Then let me try to pull back to the larger context for a moment.
Sure.
Because what we're finding under HR1 is that a lot of people are going to be kicked off of various programs if they don't comply with a lot of extra stuff that is being received required in that it has been our stated commitment and the stated commitment of counties, even though it's our commitment and we haven't necessarily done the resources to go with it, that we want to do what it takes to keep every Californian that deserving of benefits on those benefits. Now this grievance process is that just sort of or the stuff that is funded by the I think it's 27 positions in this item. Is that a one off because of a previous existing requirement or does that fit into this more global picture of trying to keep people on the services?
Thank you for the question. It is separate and apart from anything that has happened under HR1 and actually was established under President Biden in 2020. For it is not directly related to eligibility for any of our programs but really is about making sure as people are utilizing our programs that there is a clear statewide mechanism for them to lift up grievances and for the state to understand and recognize critical incidents if they occur within our programs and to make sure that people are receiving the supports they need if they've experienced a cross critical incident.
And does that mean that the eligibility determination and then the operation of the program is at the county level but they can file a grievance that comes to the state level? Is that what the.
That's correct. And currently we don't have a formal grievance system within the state and this final rule is requiring us to establish one. But that will not change anything about the how the counties are administering the programs currently and running eligibility programs, whatever
system systems they have in place now.
That's right. And just to be clear, we obviously work closely with the county. This is all going to be within our CMIPs system, which is our case management system which all the counties use and that is run by the state. So we will obviously be working with the counties closely as we stand up these new grievance processes and new critical incident systems, but it will be run through the state and not by the individual counties.
Okay, appreciate that. So this makes sense. Are there any additional comments from either the Department of Finance or the Legislative Analyst?
Lo no additional comments at this time.
Thomas Locke, Department of Finance Nothing to add. Okay, well, thank you very much. We appreciate that. We'll hold that item open. We're going to move to item number five, which, which is the housing programs interview. And I really apologize if I'm not pronouncing the name that I'm about to pronounce. We have Hannah Azamate who's going to present on this and then we will still have Mr. Trotter and Mr. Locke. So welcome to the committee.
My name is Hannah Azamati and I'm the Deputy Director for the California Department, Department of Social Services, Housing and homelessness division, or HHD. Per the questions, my testimony will focus on four of our six programs, the CalWORKS Housing Support Program, HSP, the Housing and Disability Advocacy Program, HDAP, HomeSafe, and the Bringing Families Home Program. Each of these programs provides flexible support such as outreach, housing, navigation, case management, and targeted financial assistance to help people obtain and maintain stable housing. These programs have had significant impact, collectively serving 42,725 individuals and families in the last fiscal year. Rates of exits to permanent housing continue to exceed statewide averages despite these programs serving populations with high levels of need. Further, the impacts that these programs have extends beyond housing, underscoring the foundational role that housing has has in the lives of individuals and families. CDSS data and external evaluations, for example, show significant impacts on family reunification for bfh, disability benefit approvals for hdap, improved family well being for hsp, and preservation of affordable housing for vulnerable adults across communities through Home Safe. While HSP and HDAP receive ongoing funds, both programs are transitioning to reduced scale due to the exhaustion of major time limited investments provided in budget acts of 2021 and 2022. HomeSafe and BFH are funded only by recurring time limited funds and have no ongoing funding. As these funds were exhausted, many HSP, HDAP, HomeSafe, and BFH programs had begun shutting down or scaling back across the state during the last fiscal year. The budget act of 2025 included a new round of one time funds for HDAP, HomeSafe, and BFH. This funding enabled the three programs to resume operations and ramp back up across the state. Consistent with spending projection tables that were recently shared with the Legislature, HDAB funds are anticipated to be exhausted on a statewide level in the first quarter of fiscal year 2026 27. At that point, counties will have to scale back programming to align with the baseline funding amounts due to exhaustion of the new one time funds and with the infusion of the fiscal year 2526, funds for HomeSafe and BFH funds are expected to be exhausted the second quarter of fiscal year 2728. And of course, individual county timelines could vary from those timelines. Counties and tribal partners continue to report that one time funding creates implementation challenges, particularly for sustaining staffing partnerships and program infrastructure. These fluctuations can cause service disruptions for participants and reduce efficiency as grantees must repeatedly scale up and ramp back down programs instead of focusing resources on helping families and individuals achieve stable housing. As noted, the 2025 Budget act did not include additional one time augmentations for the CalWORKs Housing Support Program, so the program has returned to its 95 million statewide baseline. This is a significant transition for counties as they utilize 207 million to support families served in HSP in the last fiscal year alone, and at the same time, we know families are continuing to face persistent housing affordability crises and communities are experiencing reductions in other assistance as well. Requests for HSP have continued to rise while in fiscal year 2425 the program enrolled 14,500 families out of 23,000 requests. Based on projections, HSP is expected to serve approximately 10,000 to 11,000 in this fiscal year. Counties consistently report that HSP success is rooted in its flexibility to provide the specific supports that a family needs to obtain and retain housing. With the return to baseline funding, counties are not just reducing enrollments, but we're also seeing that they're also reducing the range of services that were previously available, such as limiting or eliminating emergency hotels stays, certain supportive services, and the duration and level of rental subsidies. We do anticipate that these changes due to decreased funding could negatively impact outcomes over time. Lastly, I will address Senate Bill 146, which added new requirements to strengthen client protections across these four programs. Key components of Senate Bill 146 include local complaint resolution processes, state administrative hearings, when applicable, individualized written housing plans for participants and written notice in advance of discontinuance or decreases of assistance or services, and finally, assistance pending during complaints or appeals. CDSS has already begun activities to prepare for implementation through extensive stakeholder engagement, including one on one feedback calls with counties. The Department released initial draft policy outlines earlier this year and is currently incorporating stakeholder feedback. The Department plans to issue final guidance through all county letters by March 2027, after which counties will have six months to implement new requirements with technical assistance from the Department. Thank you for your time and happy to answer questions.
Thank you. Legislative Analyst Any comments?
Come on Charter lal We have nothing further at this time, but we're available to provide technical assistance as needed.
Thank you. Finance Thomas Locke, Department of Finance Nothing for her to add. Okay, thank you. I have a couple of questions here and one is the to stand back more global what we're just seeing the statistics show among unhoused people in California that there's a disproportionate bubble of older Californians. So you used a statistic about 42,000 or whatever it is being helped. How is that against what the demand is or what the need is? You feel like you're really making progress with the senior demographic that's unhoused.
Yeah, I'm happy to speak to that. So we understand the level of housing need amongst older adults through several sources of data. One is looking at the Homeless Data Integration System take up of services by older adults which shows that a large portion of or about 20% of people that seek out homeless services are older adults of that percent. During fiscal year 2325, our HDAP and Home Safe program served about 18% of that population of older adults taking up any services, any homeless business services across the state that has declined to 10% during the past fiscal year. So fiscal year 2425 just with the decline in funding availability across the state. Additionally, I would also note that when we look at Home Safe specifically, we are able to look at the level of housing need amongst clients of APS Adult Protective Services. And there we know that our program is reaching about HomeSafe is reaching about 40% of those that have identified housing need. That's based on last fiscal year data as well.
So are there strategies to try to bump that number up? This is the budget chair asking that in tough budget time. So I apologize. And that's a whole other issue. But but I'm curious.
Yeah, so HomeSafe and HDAB both have specific eligibility criteria, but we know and so they reach a specific segment of older adults. For Home Safe it's those that are engaged with adult protective services. And for HDAP it's individuals who are likely eligible for disability benefits. So they're reaching specific segments of the older adult population that's at risk for experiencing homelessness. But we do know that based on counties delivery of services at the peak availability of funding that they were able to reach a larger population of older adults and have had to essentially scale back some of that against some of the demand as the one time funding was exhausted and even the new one time funding for HDAP is being exhausted in the next year. So it is the CAP funding that
is a part of the issue. You mentioned the housing support program. I think you did. I think you said hsp.
HSP serves families.
Yeah. So. But on that one the money is running out. That was the one time money. As you said in your comments, it's going back to the baseline and you said you expected outcomes to drop. Will there be any recommendations coming from the department or the Finance Department on how to address any lessened outcomes due
to that, the administration does not have a proposal at this time. I don't know if my colleagues at Department of Finance want to add anything,
but they're just loving the fact that you tossed it to them. Thomas Locke, Department of Finance Just to reemphasize, like my colleague mentioned, the 2025 Budget act has provided one time funding for HTAF Home Safe and Bringing Families Home. And there are balances that still remain from prior years up to fiscal up to fiscal year 2021 22.
Just to.
Sorry, here, Child Department of Finance so. So just to kind of echo what my DSS colleague, if you could move
it a little closer.
Yeah, just to echo what my DSS colleague said, the governor's budget does not include any proposals at this time.
Oh, I know it doesn't include them. That's why I'm asking. So and it's like as the person that just gave instructions to try to close the budget gap, I don't mean to suggest we need to go out and forage for things that increase the budget gap, but this is a concern. So. Well, thank you. We appreciate that. We'll move to item number six. Very similar cast of characters. It's about a permit position authority for the Housing and Homelessness Program.
Hi.
Hana Zamati, Deputy Director for the Housing and Homelessness Division within cdss. The proposal for permanent position authority for CDSS is Housing and Homelessness Programs Request permanent position authority for 11 existing positions funded through a portion of local assistance. Housing program funds that are carved out for state operations positions include managers, supervisors, analysts and data and research specialists in the Housing and Homelessness Division as well as one attorney position.
Anything from the Lao Jawan Charr Legislative Analyst Office. As we continue to review this proposal, we would note that as we previously heard in the previous issue, many of these housing programs did receive large one time augmentations with multi year spending availability. However, it's also the case that some of these housing and homes programs do not have ongoing funding authority beyond these one time allocations. So given that, we would like to just continue to better understand understand the level of permanent workload requested in association with these proposals and we'll inform you if we identify any concerns moving forward.
Thank you. Department of Finance Thomas Locke, Department of Finance Nothing to add. Okay then just a couple of quick questions in the weeds questions. So these are limited term for what is a new program that is moving to if the request were approved, permanent positions, is that correct?
These are existing limited term positions associated with our programs. They're not new programs per SE. For example, BFH, while it doesn't have ongoing funding, was launched in 2016 and has had received sort of multiple rounds of time limited funds. So we are trying to sustain the state level capacity to support both the programs that have ongoing funding, the programs that have one time funding that keep getting renewed, as well as the CCE program which we haven't discussed as part of this. But it's another program that's under the Department of Social Services, Housing and Homelessness
Division that CCE stands for.
What Community Care Expansion Program.
Thank you. I'm an anti acronym person. I want everybody to know what we're actually talking about.
Thank you. And that program is building, has funding through 2029 and is building housing with supportive services across.
And I made the mistake because I was trying to go into the Socratic method and that didn't work because I. But I appreciate the response. That's very helpful because I'm trying to understand if, if you were scoring all this, it was limited term, which means this is new to the baseline and new to the out year projections if these are approved. Is that correct?
It's actually. I don't know if you want to jump in.
Sure.
Department of Finance. So I think to kind of help clarify, these positions will still continue to be funded from the existing one time
or limited term appropriations.
But I think because of the multiple continuing multiple one time funding that's being provided, there continues to be this sort of like longer term, you know, administrative workload that needs to be addressed. And so I think what we're trying to do here is provide the permanent positions for them because we know there's that need. And then. And they would continue to be funded from the existing appropriations.
Okay, thank you. And as a result, though, just regardless of the funding source, you're measuring the outcomes and you're deciding whether these programs are there's efficacy, right?
Yes. We both review CDSS data on a regular basis and are seeing very strong outcomes both with regard to housing as well as other system outcomes such as child welfare. And additionally, we have worked with external partners to conduct independent evaluations as well. So for example, two months ago, UCSF's Benioff Housing and Homelessness Initiative published a final evaluation of the Home Safe Program that again found that that the program really is effective at closing gaps in the homelessness system. Last year, this time May of 2020, maybe it was three years ago now, sorry. The California Policy Lab out of UC Berkeley and USC Children's Data Network also published an evaluation of the BFH program that found very significant outcomes with regard to both housing and child welfare. So we are both conducting our own evaluation on an ongoing basis, reviewing data reported by counties and tribes as well and working with external evaluators to identify impacts.
Okay, thank you. Any additional comments from any of the panelists?
No additional comments.
Thomas Locke, Department of Finance. No further comments. Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate, appreciate that discussion. We'll hold that item open. We'll move to item number seven, the facility management system. We're switching out. We have Deputy Director Ramsey coming back. We're not switching out the lao. He seems to be semi permanent. And then Soha Manzoor is, I think coming in for the Department of Finance when she's ready. We'll begin with the deputy Director.
Good morning again, Claire Ramsey, Chief Deputy Director for the Department of Social Services, speaking on issue seven in the facility management system. I'm going to jump right into the specific questions that were asked related to the Community Care Licensing Division's budget proposed for fiscal year 2627. The budget is 275 million million in total funds. That is 150 in general funds, 95.8 million in federal funds and 29.3 million in special funds. The department, excuse me, the Community Care licensing division has 1,608.5 authorized positions. We have steadily grown over the last five years to bring us up to that total. This is largely our budget is focused, focused on our actual staff because we have the workload related to four different major programs within the Community Care Licensing Division and all the work to support those programs. Our current vacancy rate at CCLD is 5.1% as of February 1, 2026. I'll now move on to provide an overview of the Facility Management System project, sometimes referred to as fms, but I don't need to refer to it that way here it is a state approved
modernization and what it is referred to
the fms, the Facility Management System.
I thought you just said fms.
No, no. Actually that's a good one, but not on this one's going well. It's a state approved modernization initiative to replace eight of our aging and fragmented Community Care Licensing Division Legacy Systems with a single integrated licensing platform that improves operational efficiency, strengthens internal controls and reduces long term operational risk for the Department of Social Services. With respect to the timeline, we are rolling it out in three phases. We have a release one coming in the summer of 2026, a release two in the fall of 2026 and a release three in the winter of 2027. This will complete a roughly 24 month implementation. After that, the project will enter 12 months of maintenance and operations. During our maintenance and operation phase, CDSS will handle the lower level technical support required, while our prime vendor will handle the higher level technical support along with ongoing system monitoring, maintenance and updates. Once fully operational, the system's ongoing costs will cover our state staffing. Software renewals and vendor services are expected to be more predictable than our current legacy systems and currently we're estimating that cost at $7.5 million a year. But of course we will have more information as our system gets up and running. Finally, there was a question about whether we think there will be a savings as a result of these improvements. The goal is to modernize our licensing oversight and we do expect the new system to produce ongoing efficiencies. However, it's too early for us to determine whether this will lead to savings, but we are monitoring monitoring that and we do expect that the automation will cut down on manual tasks. It will come with more self service tools that will streamline provider interactions and will help us improve data accuracy to support faster and more reliable compliance monitoring. In addition, retiring our eight legacy systems will eliminate the need for their maintenance and support. So we do expect these improvements will lessen certain functions, but we aren't yet at a place where we are anticipating savings, but it's something we can certainly provide updates on as future years go forward and we're actually using the system. With that, I will stop and happy to take any questions.
Thank you.
Legislative Analyst Juwan Trotter Lao we have nothing further to raise at this time.
Finance Sohamanzoor.
Department of Finance.
Nothing further to add.
Thank you. And I had a couple of of questions, but you answered them.
Oh, perfect.
Thank you. I don't know if. Senator Grove, we're on item number seven if you have any questions.
I do, sir. Thank you. I apologize. I was stuck in the public elevator for 10 minutes.
I'm glad you're here.
I really, like, really have empathy with you guys with how slow those elevators are. So I apologize for being late. I do have questions. I have a facility in my district, specifically Tulare County. Just so you know. The file, the complaints, everything is this thick with photographs of the horrific conditions that this elderly population was in. You guys had to go in and get them. So the Community Care Licensing Division is tasked with overseeing the licensing monitoring of residential care facilities. And I know your team should be familiar with this situation. Yes, at Autumn Oaks. Yes.
Yes, we are, Senator.
I guess my question to you is the facility is closed now, but that wasn't until Tulare county rescued 22 seniors like Tulare, not the state, 22 senior residents from the facility in November due to serious and immediate health hazards. I received this packet of information from county providing all background on the situation, including 53 complaints sent to your department with no action. Again, 53 complaints with no action. And these seniors were not being taken care of at all. There's photos, there's bed bugs, there's cockroach nests, there's food being stored in absolutely unsafe conditions. There's feces on the beds, feces on the floor, feces on patients. And situations like this are devastating to residents and their families. And it's really a lack of decisive response from you. So tell me why that happened.
Thank you, Senator, for your question. We do take this situation extremely seriously and we take our role as overseeing licensed facilities extremely seriously. We have heard from both Tulare county and from Porterville about this facility and their concerns. And we both appreciate their feedback. And we are looking very closely at what happened in this situation and what steps we need to take to make sure that they do not reoccur. Do want to confirm that the license was surrendered by the licensee in October of 2025. And our department did work with Tulare county and with the long term care ombudsman in the county to help with the relocation of the residents and support that. We appreciate that those residents are now in safer conditions and are no longer at risk. So appreciate that. We are doing an evaluation internally of what happened? And we do not at this point have any actions that are public. But I just flag that the department does have the authority, even after a license is surrendered, to take administrative action against a licensee, if that is warranted, to ensure that they cannot simply surrender their license and then go to another county or another town and open a facility and run it poorly. So that is something that the department does have authority and we can follow up if there are additional public action that are shareable with you.
Senator, and I appreciate that very much. But my concern is your process, I guess 53 complaints that go through the process, 53 complaints that went through email or hard mail and with no response over a long period of time. So I guess where do those complaints go? Who receives those emails? Who's in charge of making sure that those emails are read and who after that? Like what's your process once you receive the email, which I'm hoping maybe you didn't receive the email because I would hate to think think that you guys ignored the emails or the hard copies that were mailed to the office. So what's the process and how could 53 complaints fall through the cracks and let 22 seniors live through this disaster for months?
And Senator, let me take back the question about the timeliness of response to the complaints because we were following up, although I know some of the complaints were originally either found unsubstantiated or unfounded and then after being reviewed again were found substantiated.
So there was found them unsubstantiated. There were cockroaches, bed bugs and people living with feces who unsubstantiated those complaints.
Respectfully, it was the licensing analyst at the time and it was reviewed and identified that they were overlooking the current evidence while leaning on the fact that there was pest control that was theoretically
being,
you know, pursued by the facility, but it wasn't having the intended effect. So that is something.
Did the licensed analyst that was out there at that time, did they even visit the facility for a visual inspection?
My understanding is they did, but I can confirm with your follow up and confirm with your office and take that back.
And if they did that, that situation did not set off any alarms.
We have reviewed that and we recognize that we want to make sure we have the processes in place so things cannot slip through the cracks. And again, I don't even think that's a good word for it. We do have a centralized complaint bureau to take complaints when they arrive. They are then pushed out to the regional offices to provide that complaint process and that in person inspection. We do have to do an in person inspection on every complaint within 10 days and we meet those timelines. So again, we are doing the internal review to understand what went wrong here. And we do recognize that these seniors were in untenable conditions and want to follow up further with that.
And I know about this because I'm the Senator over at Tulare county and I have a great relationship with my county supervisors. How many incidents like this in the state do you have?
We are not aware of any other incident.
Not one other incident like this?
No.
Through licensing or any part of the other. Any area of the other areas in your department?
That's correct, Senator.
It's never happened in any other part of the state.
I. I want to be careful because obviously I'm not.
You're not.
I'm not. I don't want to speak to, you know, everything that's happened all over California for all time. But my understanding is there are no other similar incidents occurring at this time within our licensing programs.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Senator.
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator. Any other questions on this item?
You want trial? No questions, no comments.
Good. I'm glad you're on the record.
Soha Manzur, Department of Finance. No further comments.
Okay, thank you very much. We appreciate the discussion on this. We'll move to item number eight, which is Home Care Services branch authorization and trailer bill. We still have the Deputy Director, we still have Mr. Trotter. Mr. Locke is coming back, so let me ask if you have any introductory comments on this item.
Thank you, Senator. Claire Ramsey, Chief Deputy Director for the Department of Social Services. This home care solvency is related to our Home Care Services Branch which is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Home Care Services Consumer Protection act which was established in January of 2014. This provides licensure and monitoring for home care organizations that provide non medical services and assist to clients who require those services in the home. This bill provides a couple of different pieces to it. First, it allows the department to access additional funding to support the home care program. Originally, when it was started, the home care program was required to be fully fee funded. But that has never borne out. It has never been able to license enough home care to support fully support that fee funding model. As such, we are now requesting $3.9 million this year in the budget, 1.4 million in general funds and ability to access an additional $2.5 million in the Home Care Special Fund in fiscal year 2626 and 3.9 million, 4.1.4 million in general fund and 2.5 million in the home care fund ongoing. This will help us support 15 positions and additional funding equivalent of three new positions to allow us to work toward achieving solvency and eliminating any lack of capacity to to both license and follow up on complaints and inspections with home care organizations. Additionally, we are requesting a $5.6 million general fund loan forgiveness for an outstanding balance on our current loan. This will help stabilize the program's fund and ensure compliance with statutory mandates. We believe that between the additional money were requested and the home forgiveness. Excuse me, the loan forgiveness, the home care will be able to maximize its resources towards the licensure and safety of home care facilities. I will also mention we have a second part of the proposal which involves asking for an additional two year deadline to finish our regulations. Home care currently has statute but no regulations on the book. So this is actually us setting up the entire structure of home care regulations. Originally the deadline was the 2026 and we are requesting two years additional to 2028. I will stop there. Happy to take any questions about the home care. Oh, I'm sorry Senator. Excuse me. I did want to mention we were required to release a report and we released it earlier this week. And if there are any follow up questions we're happy to answer those about the report.
Thank you very much. Move to the Legislative Analyst Juwan Charter
Legislative Analyst Office so as you just heard, the administration has recently published a report on the Home Care Services branch and the solvency of the home care fund. We are continuing to review this report and the analysis of the home care fund funds fee structure. But as it was recently released. We'll get back to you if you have any concerns.
Thank you. The Department of Finance. Thomas Locke Department of Finance Nothing further to add. Thank you. And then let me ask one question because you were talking about the financing and this fund was based on fees and it was coming short and there was also some mention in there of loan forgiveness and the fees aren't sufficient. So if what is requested here is funded, does that mean it's finally financially sustainable?
Thank you for that question, Senator. We are working towards solvency and I think one of the pieces that has been part of determining whether we will achieve solvency is how many home care organizations we are able to license. Part of the premise here was that there were a certain number of home care organizations in the state that were operating prior to the statute going into place lawfully without licensure. But post the statute going in place we understand that there were additional facilities, or, excuse me, home care organizations that should have been licensed but weren't. Part of the work we've done with the additional positions we received a few years ago is to increase the number of licensed home care organizations. We think there are additional home care organizations that will get licensed under this, our additional capacity. And I think at that point we'll be able to have a better sense of whether we've hit critical mass on licensure and then confirm that we are able to achieve solvency between our 5 fund balance and our general loan.
So maybe to compress that.
Sure.
Jury's still out.
I would say it is. Although we are. We are asking for what we need in 26, 27.
Perfect. Thank you. Any questions from the peanut gallery?
Where's the other two chair?
Yeah, I'm really going to look forward to telling her you demanded her back. That's going to be good.
No, we have a podcast together.
Yes. And there's 134 specialty crops produced in our district. I'm sure peanuts are one of them. That should have worked perfectly.
So just going back to that, because you're seeing licensing commission. You talked about the individual. The license for the license has been revoked. How do we make sure that that is permanently revoked and that this individual has no ability to obtain a license again in the state of California because the atrocities that were perpetrated against these people. And is that possible? And do you ever do that?
Thank you, Senator Grove. With respect to Autumn Oaks, we do not have a public action against the licensee, but again, confirming that the department has the authority. Authority. And it is still under investigation whether administrative action will be moved forward. But yes, we have both the authority to revoke the license officially. And so it is coming from the state as opposed to a surrender from the licensee. And we also have the right to take exclusion action against individuals which can be up to the lifetime of the individual, so that they cannot work or own or be the licensee anymore. In a facility. In any facility. That's correct.
Because you've seen these pictures, right?
I have, Senator. Thank you.
Like all these pictures. Okay. And then you mentioned earlier that the state assisted the county in an additional placement for these residents. Who paid for that? The county or the state?
For the relocation, the staff work from the licensing department was paid for by the state, and I assume all work paid for by the count or done by the county was paid by the county. So appreciate that they released.
How do I request for reimbursement to the county because they reported this 53 times to you guys and they tried. So again, I'm just emphasizing the fact that the reason why I'm making a big deal. You guys are traditionally spot on. And people say you always bring out outliners issues.
Right?
Outliner. Whether it's with human trafficking, diversion, it doesn't matter what it is. But outlying issues like this should never happen in our state specifically. And I know this happened in my district, but it shouldn't happen in Senator Laird's district either. It shouldn't happen anywhere. And the 53 complaints with the pictures that I have before me are very sick. And so I just want to make sure, number one, this person never gets a license again to open another facility. Facility. And if my county is out any dollars, I'd like them reimbursed. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator.
Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Anything else on this item? Seeing none, we will move to item number nine, which is the child care centers and multifamily housing. We have the deputy director again with the same LAO person. I think Brandon Castaneda is going to come in for the Department of Finance. And we're going to begin with the department.
Thank you, Senator Claire Ramsey, Chief Deputy Director for the Department of Social Services speaking to issue nine, child care centers and multifamily housing. AB752 allows child care centers located within multifamily housing to be treated as residential use for zoning purposes while still meeting all licensing, building code and fire safety requirements to manage the expected increase in applications, relocations and related complaints. The proposal requests $750,000 in fiscal year 2627 and $733,000 ongoing for four limited term positions in the centralized Applications Bureau. I'm happy to take any questions.
Thank you very much.
Legislative Analyst Juwan Charlal. We have nothing further to raise at the time.
Department of Finance Brandon Casino Department of Finance Nothing further to add. Okay, and this, this just basically implements the bill to BCP to implement the bill?
That's correct, Senator.
Okay. Any questions from the dais? Okay, thank you very much. Then we'll move to Items. Item number 10, which is the Seizure Emergency Response Act. Thomas Locke is going to come back for the Department of Finance. But welcome please.
Thank you. Thank you. Senator Claire Ramsey, Department of Social services this issue 10, Seizure Emergency Response act implements AB 1172 which establishes the Seizure Emergency Response act allowing to trained staffed in volunteers in adult residential facilities and adult day programs to administer intranasal emergency anti seizure medication. CDSs must create these minimum training standards by January 1, 2028, in consultation with medical and epilepsy experts to meet these new mandates, the proposal requests $770,000 in fiscal year 2627 and $757,000 for 10 ongoing permanent positions to develop the standards and support providers in delivering safe, timely emergency care.
Legislative Analyst Juwan Trotter Elio. We have nothing further to add.
Department of Finance Thomas Locke, Department of Finance.
Nothing further to add.
Okay, this seems pretty straightforward. Let me ask if Senator Grove has any questions or comments. Okay, we're good. So thank you very much. And we will now move to issue 11, licensing during emergencies and disasters. And we'll be switching out in the Department of Finance for Krishan Malhotra. Let's begin with the Deputy Director. Thank you.
Thank you. Claire Ramsey, Chief Deputy Director for the Department of social services. Issue 11 Licensing during emergencies and disasters. This is a bill that is allowing the adult and Senior care program licensees to place their licenses in an active status during emergencies or other periods of inactivity and requires the Department to coordinate with local officials to streamline inspections when they resume operations. It also updates emergency and disaster planning requirements for our RCFEs to meet these mandates. The the proposal requests $939,000 in 2627, 919,000 in 2728 and $195,000 ongoing to support four limited term analyst positions and one permanent research analyst to support this bill.
Thank you. Legislative analyst Juwan T.R.
elio. We have nothing further to add.
Department of Finance Krishna Malhotra, Department of Finance.
Nothing further to add.
Then let me just ask the one obvious question of the Deputy Director. I assume this is an issue that came up during the Los Angeles fires. And if this bill had been in effect before the Los Angeles fires, would it have affected some of the situations that we saw that came out of that?
Thank you. Senator. This is related, and I'm sorry I didn't mention it initially to SB582 and was in response to the LA fires. Yes, we think this will strengthen licensees ability to handle emergencies and to recover afterwards and to work successfully with locals and our department.
Okay, thank you. Any questions from the Dyes?
No, I voted for 582 and I'm glad that it's coming into play. And if it would have been in play like my colleague just said prior to this, we probably wouldn't have had the issues that we had afterwards with licensing being suspended when they weren't able to operate because they didn't exist anymore. The facility didn't great.
Appreciate your comments. Thank you. Then we'll move to issue 12, the family preparedness Plan act. And Brandon Castaneda is going to be subbing back in for the Department of Finance. But then we're here with the Deputy Director in Lao. So thank you.
Chair Claire Ramsey, Chief Deposit Deputy Director for the Department of Social services. On issue 12, Family Preparedness Plan Act AB 495 requires the Attorney General to issue model policies by April 2026, limiting how child care facilities may assist with immigration enforcement. Cdss must notify all facilities and ensure all California state preschool programs adopt these policies and to implement these new mandates. The proposal request $2.9 million in 2627 and 2.8 million ongoing for 15 limited term positions to oversee the implementation and to develop the interim standards. We have additional work related to ensuring facilities avoid collecting immigration information unless required and to update emergency contacts and report immigration related law enforcement requests with our California State preschool programs, sharing those reports with the Superintendent for Public Instruction. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions.
Great.
Legislative Analyst Juwan Jar Lao. Nothing further to add.
And Department of Finance Brandon Cassandra, Department of Finance. Nothing further to add. Thank you. This seems pretty straightforward. Let me ask my colleague if she has any questions or comments. She doesn't. So we're going to move to thank you for your participation. We're going to move to the Department of Social Services Automation and we have completely new people for everything. So the administration, I will let them introduce themselves when they're ready and then we'll hear from the Legislative Analyst and the Department of Finance. So I don't know who for the administration is going to go first.
I thank you Chair Chairman Laird, committee members Brandon Hansard from the Office of Technology and Solutions Integration. I'll start us off. I want to first thank your staff for the agenda that includes the budget tables within it and for brevity of time and as well as the unfun nature of reading from a budget table. I'll hit some highlights that you've asked for within your questions. First off, for fiscal year 2627 costs for the governor's proposed 2627 budget for social services automation increase of 123.2 million total funds, 41.5 million of general fund from the Budget act of 2025 and this decrease reflects the expected completion of the HR1 related automation efforts that we've conducted for 2526 and updated costs for CalSaws maintenance and enhancements. CalFresh CalSaws updates CalWorks CalSaws updates and multiple other CalSaws updates, including MEDI Cal. With that, I'll turn it over to my colleague at Social Services.
Hi Ryan Gillette, Deputy Director with the Research, Automation and Data Division at the Department of Social Services, wanted to share a little bit more about the release of Information Program, Enterprise Data Pipeline and calwork's Child Support Notice of Action. So with the ROI program, this automation expands the availability of electronic ROI to all CBOs without requiring that they have a contract with the state or county agency in place. Updates to the automation include additions of new access roles, authentication and authorization reviews, updates to security policies and evaluation. In addition, updates to CalSods API and data tables are required the Governor's budget includes 3.2 million total funds in fiscal year 2627 with regards to the Enterprise Data Pipeline. This is an overhaul of CDSS's data infrastructure. It is a modern data infrastructure initiative to link data across programs, preserve privacy and enable data driven policy by implementing a cloud platform data warehouse. This data infrastructure allows CDSS to develop insights for state and county partners and facilitate a better understanding of cross program interactions. Specific components of the initiative include strategy development for data capture, storage and processing, enhancements to infrastructure pertaining to data integration, warehousing and analytics, and presentation and expansion of innovative data analytics across cdss. To date, the Enterprise Data Pipeline has unlocked the ability to perform rapid analytics that are used to prevent EBT theft before it happens and can be directly attributed to millions of dollars in avoided theft. This is the EDP has also cut processing times for data queries in some cases by up to 99%, allowing the CDSS research team to perform more rapid and advanced analytics. The proposed Governor's budget includes 164,000 general fund in fiscal year 2526 and 850,000 total funds 409,000 general funds in in fiscal year 2627. Just note, this is not related to Cal SOS. This is a CDSS only initiative. Finally, with regards to the CalWORKS Child support notices of Action automation, funding supports include Updates in Cal SOS and benefits Cal to implement revised CalWORKs child support policy requirements. Changes include updating multiple forms, creating new notices of action, modifying eligibility logic related to the assignment of support rights, and updating online data collection pages and systems integrations. This effort also includes multilingual form updates, benefits CAL API changes and system testing across impacted reports and workflows. The budget includes 2.6 million in TANF total funds for fiscal year 2627.
Hand it back over to me. Wanted to touch upon some of the HR1 questions that you had in your agenda. And first off, with the HR1 changes, the governor's budget does include 20.5 total million total fund in fiscal year 2526 for HR1 related changes to CalSAS as provided by the 2025 Budget act and it includes 9.2 million total fund for CalFresh Automation to comply with new federal policies related to HR1 and 11.3 million DHC reimbursement for Medi Cal Automation to comply with HR1. Along with that we have the CalFresh accuracy improvement initiative. So additionally the Governor's budget includes funding for CalFresh accuracy aimed at lowering the payment error rate. CalLaw's efforts only account for a portion of this larger effort and the total amount provided in CalSAW's portion of accuracy improvement initiative for 2526 was 31.1 million total fund and in 27627 2.9 million total fund and then you asked about the way that we work with Calsa's project, especially in prioritization of HR1 efforts and both Social Services and OTSI participate in Calsa's collaboration forums and planning activities to ensure that automation changes needed to implement HR1 are prioritized based on statutory requirements, program impact and operational readiness. This collaboration ensures the most critical changes are delivered in support of federal and state policy implementation. Lastly, you asked about some community based organization concerns and wanting to touch upon that our community based organizations play an important role in helping Californians apply for and maintain Benefits through Benefits California in 2025, advocates raised questions regarding CBO account access and support processes and approval and oversight of CBO Manager accounts is a county administered function as counties are responsible for validating organizations and ensuring appropriate privacy security protections for clients. To support greater clarity for CBO partners, the County Welfare Directors association convened counties, calsas, Social Services, Healthcare Services and Advocate representatives to develop statewide guidance on handling CBO account requests. Issued in December 2025, this guidance outlines recommended practices for counties on reviewing requests, validating organizations, assisting applicants, and establishing clear points of contact for CBO support. CalSOS continues to engage advocates through their stakeholder forums and User Centered Design center sessions that inform ongoing improvements to the public facing benefits. CAL experience
that completes your part of the presentation. Let's go to the Legislative Analyst THIN
MA with the lao.
We have nothing further to add and
the Department of Finance.
Noel Falkaji, Department of Finance no further
comments and the one major question I had you addressed because I was going to ask about the HR1 impacts let me ask my colleague if she has any questions or comments.
I'm just going to be clear. Because of HR1 and what happened on the federal government reducing benefits to undocumented individuals here, the state of California is back. This budget backfills the resources that were coming from the federal government.
This is the sort of data processing part of it.
Yes, I would say.
And if you could please identify.
Sorry.
Nawal Falkaji, Department of Finance actually, sorry, can you clarify sort of what portion of backfill you're talking about or.
I mean, there's a revised budget proposal to increase dollars from the state and you're referencing HR1. So the question is, are you saying that because the federal government has withdrawn dollars from from California for illegal or undocumented immigrants from these programs, is the state of California preparing to backfill those programs with taxpayer dollars? I'm just asking.
No, there's no sort of discretionary state
action related to that.
You may be referring to the HR1 provision related to admin dollars. HR1 did change the funding ratio between the state and federal government. And so there are additional dollars in the governor's budget just to reflect the updated cost sharing provisions related to HR1,
but not any programs. No programs are going to be additional dollars.
No anything related. Sort of discretionary. Related to HR1 and undocumented individuals.
So just the funding ratio between the federal and state government, that's sort of
the major component of HR1 that has changed. As mentioned, there's also.
And where in the in the state budget would we see that There is a CalFresh?
There's a CFAP program which is essentially, you know, cal food benefits for individuals who are not eligible for CalFresh based on their immigration status. There's no sort of discretionary change there in sort of who would be eligible because of HR1?
No, I'm not saying who would be eligible. I know I'm from California. I know that that's of kind. I'm asking you, is it covered from the budget process here for the reductions from HR1? Maybe I'm asking it wrong.
Yes, ma', am, we do have the Deputy Director of the Department of Social Services.
Thank you. Senator Claire Ramsey from CDSS. Just to clarify, HR1 changes were not related to benefits to undocumented immigrants, but are actually making changes in the core programs for CDSS that's related to CalFresh. And there are a number of complex changes happening and currently we are not, to Department of Finance's point, seeking to backfill those changes, except with respect to the admin. So just wanted to clarify that point.
Okay. No, that's perfect. You just referenced HR1. And so I was just trying to figure out where you guys were going with that. So I apologize. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any final comments on this item? Seeing none, we will move. Thank you. We will move to our final item and it's a stakeholder presentation and it is Christina Mills from the California association of the Areas on Aging. And let me just say we are right at this moment blowing by our hard stop for the end of the hearing. So we're going to hear this presentation and if we can take any public comment before noon, we will do that. But we really have a hard stop at noon. So welcome to the committee. You have up to three minutes.
Is it on now?
Oh, there it is. Here we go.
Senator Laird, Senator Grove, thank you both for being here. Senator Laird, thank you for chairing and for sponsoring our bill in the SLO Ventura, Santa Barbara area. My name is Christina Mills and I am the Executive Director of the California association of Area agencies on Aging C4A representing the network of Area Agencies on Aging that deliver Older American act services in communities across the California. I'm here today to respectfully ask for Your support in C4A's 62.3 million Older Californians act budget request. This investment will help sustain the core community based services that allow older adults and people with disabilities to remain healthy, independent and safely in their homes and communities. This request also supports the implementation of Senate Bill 1249 by Roth, the modernization of the Older California act that the legislature passed in 2024. As the state works towards implementing this law, it is critical that services are the services that they are prioritizing. Nutrition information assistance and caregiving support have the resources necessary to meet the growing need. We are also at a point when many systems that older adults rely on are changing, including Medi Cal and other long term services and support programs. As these systems become more complex, community based aging services play an increasingly important role in helping people understand what help is available and how to access it. March is National Nutrition Month, which is a timely reminder of how essential nutrition services are for older adults across California. Home delivered meals and Congregate meals provide critical support for individuals who do not have access to transportation or cannot easily prepare or obtain their own meals. Congregate meal programs provide nutritious food while also helping prevent social isolation by bringing older adults together in their communities. But many people only learn about these programs because they first connect with information and assistance. INA is often the front door to the Aging Service Network. It helps older adults, people with disabilities and caregivers navigate complex systems, understand their options and connect to services like nutrition programs, caregiving support, transportation, as well as many other government community based resources. Family caregivers are also an essential part of the system. Caregiver support programs help prevent burnout and provide families with the tools and respite they need to continue supporting their loved ones at home. Together, these services form the foundation of the Community Based Aging Network. They help stabilize individuals and families, prevent unnecessary institutionalization and ensure that older adults and people with disabilities can live with dignity and choice in their community. On behalf of C4A and the area Agency on Aging Across California, I respectfully ask for your Support in the $62.3 million older California Zach budget request. Thank you for your time and consideration. I also just want to point out as a point of clarification from no,
I was excited you were only five seconds over but you've turned on to a run on sentence.
Sorry. I just want to point out that earlier you had asked about the last one time only legislation, legislation, modernization, nutrition dollars and while they do end in 2029, I think it's important to point out that AAAs were given a time frame of five years. Some of them spent it within three years and are not holding it all the way to five given the needs in their communities. So this year there are some nutrition programs that will be faced with cuts or lack of funding as a result of that.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Appreciate your presence and your comments. Let me ask if there are any comments from the Department of Aging.
There are not. Thank you.
Any from the Legislative Analyst over here? I'm sorry he switched on you.
I switched seats on you. Juan Jar allegedly at his office. Nothing further.
That okay in the Department of Finance.
Jennifer Ramirez, Department of Finance so I have a couple of comments. I'll try to be brief. So notwithstanding the merits of the request, we note that any additional investments beyond current service levels may add to the out year deficits currently projected by both the Administration and the lao. We also want to note that all the services mentioned in the agenda, including the information and assessment assistance services are pre existing as part of the Older American act and not newly established requirements under CA 2030. So just a clarification on the agenda there to support this workload. Finance would also note the 2022 Budget act provided 186 million general fund distributed over the five years to support the Area Agencies on Aging's core aging services and the 2026-27 governor's budget maintains that 37.2 million general fund investment for these purposes. As my colleagues at CDA mentioned earlier in the agenda, of the 186 million, 126.7 million was allocated for nutrition programs. And so to date, just want to clarify, the AAA Network has expended 20.1 million to temporarily mitigate the impact of nutrition shortages caused by the federal changes. The AAAs can continue to utilize the remaining 106.6 million within the modernizing OCA investment funding. And again, this includes that 37.2 million million in the budget year. As mentioned. And as mentioned previously, these funds are available until June 30, 2029. However, all this said, we look forward to working with the legislature on this issue through the May revision as we finalize the budget.
Thank you.
Thank you. And let me make one comment. I really appreciate the proposal and in a rare moment I'm partially aligning myself with the Department of Finance. Just in the sense that we have a budget problem this year and a monumental problem the next year and we are not going to meet it without making some cuts and maybe in one or two places doing some revenue. If it is really 7:17 to $30 billion in the out year, it is going to be really, really difficult to add anything to the budget. Having said that, we're very cognizant of the federal cuts and we're very cognizant of the safety net and trying to figure out how we do the least amount of cuts in the safety net as we are in that situation. And so we have had this wonderful 14 item discussion today, completely in a void without that discussion. And yet that is what is overhanging us all. So thank you, we appreciate this and if there's ever any further information, let us know. We are really at the end of the hearing. And so let me take a survey. Who here would like to give public comment? 1, 2, 3. Whoops, you're standing up. 4, 5, 6, 7. I can't. They don't want another hand. So. So I am going to take only those people. If you line up and you have a maximum of one minute because we're going to go past our hard score. Stop. So please. Welcome to the committee.
Great.
Good afternoon.
Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western center on Law and Poverty. We are very concerned about the status of housing programs under cdss, which serve very vulnerable populations. As the chair pointed out by his questions, we will not be able to serve older adults at risk of homelessness with reduced funding. We are also very concerned about more CalWORKs for families who will be stabilized by their inability to access housing and at risk of entering the more expensive child welfare system. In addition, we want to advocate for the HDAP program, which serves those likely eligible for SSI disability benefits. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Chair Laird My name is Ray Cansino, CEO of Community Bridges Meals on Wheels in Santa Cruz County, Vice Chair of Meals on Wheels California and Advocacy Chair. I'm here today to urge support of the $62.3 million C4A ASK and older modernization ASK and $37 million for meals on Wheels and other senior nutrition providers across California. The system is already under strain. Two thirds of Meals on Wheels providers maintain a wait list more than double the national average. For the first time in 50 years, our agency took on a wait list in 26, 27. The consequences are going to be real. Following that year, we're looking at potentially 5 million meals lost, 70, 72,000 older adults losing services. One in five meals will go undelivered. So I think it's important for you to ask that this $37 million ask does not account for growth, inflation or increasing demand. It's just an ongoing commitment from the state government to older adults in California. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon. Yasmin Pellet, on behalf of justice in Aging.
Just here to express support for the Department of Aging's request on increased high cap funds and also want to appreciate the legislature's investment last year in both HDAP and Home Safe and the need to make sure that there's continued funding for those programs as they are the only two programs in the state focused on older adult homelessness prevention. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Welcome.
Good morning.
My name is Sarah Martinez.
I'm with Agency on Aging Area 4
and just wanted to show our support
for the stakeholder proposal for investment as
presented by Christina Mills.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Welcome.
Thank you so much. My name is Anna Berry and I'm with Seniors first in Placer County. We are just here today to respectfully ask for your support for the California association of Area Agency request today. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Welcome. Hi. George Cruz, on behalf of the California
Behavioral Health association, we appreciate the state's continued commitment in the Master Plan for Aging and the department's leadership recognizing the
behavioral health needs for older adults. And we urge the legislature to continue
monitoring how the state's budget will affect local BHSA implementation and the current federal climate will impact Community based organizations that serve older adults. Many of the programs that serve those populations are experiencing a loss in reductions
due to the workforce and those services will set back progress and increase downstream costs. We asked the legislature to maintain strong
support for community based care models and
to protect investments in programs that safeguard both individuals receiving care and the providers that serve them. The stable housing and homelessness prevention behavioral
health supports remain essential to keeping older
adults and families stable in their communities. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Welcome to the committee.
Thank you, Senator. I'm Wendy Peterson with the Senior Services Coalition of Alameda county representing 40 organizations that serve older adults in our county. In our county, older adults are one of the disproportionately impacted populations when it comes to HR1 reductions and changes and providers are already seen in the community. Seniors who are in need of help navigating economic hardship, destabilized by eligibility and hunger and the resulting health impacts. This is on top of the tremendous growth in the population and increasing impoverishment of older adults in our community. We are one of the counties where the modernization dollars for senior nutrition are ending sooner than 2029. And on top of that, flat funding for the other programs is the same as a cut. You know, it means providers are unable to meet meet the need. And so I urge you to support the C4A's Older Californians act budget request.
Thank you very much. Welcome.
Thank you. Senator Kim Olson with SOS Meals on Wheels. We serve 3,000 seniors each year in Alameda county. Supporting what my colleagues have already said about flat funding being really a cut in funding with the increased need increased in inflation. I'd like to ask with our concerns about HR1 and also snap impacts that for our seniors and meals that we deliver are nutritionally designed exactly for a homebound senior's needs. Traditional food security safety nets are not designed for a senior. They can't make it to a food pantry and the food there is not healthy for them. We are the safety net that makes sure that they can stay healthy and access food in their homes. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Welcome.
Thank you. Senator Monica Kirkland with Senior Services Coalition of Alameda county. As the HR1 impacts continue to hit local communities, critical programs like Home Safe and HDAP become more and more critical.
So I'm here today to ask the
committee and yourself to continue to protect the funding for both Home Safe and HDAP when the May revise is is released. But more important, we need these programs to be supported by ongoing funding, not one time allocations that wind down and wind back up. As it was stated earlier, the number of people helped reduce from 18% to 10% and it was because of that fluctuation in one time funding. And thank you so much for your attention to this need at this time.
Thank you very much and thanks to everyone for for their participation in this hearing. Thanks for those that just waited all the way for a brief oral comment. And as I said previously, if you were unable to attend and you're listening or you wish to expand on the comments you made that we limited because of time, please log on to the Committee's website or write us here at this address and we will make sure that your comments are noted and incorporated. With that, thank you for productive hearing. The Budget Subcommittee Number three on Health and Human Services stands adjourned.
Sa.