Assembly Budget Subcommittee No 2 Human Services

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome everyone. This is the Assembly Budget Subcommittee 2 on Human Services Issues. And today's hearing is on the Governor's May revision. And the most important part of the hearing is to hear from the public, your reactions, your feedback, your priorities and concerns. So I'll begin with child care and early education issues in part one, and then we'll go through all of the human services proposals in part two. We have asked the administration to present briefly on the main revisions proposals and to pause to allow members to ask questions. Before we invite our first panel to begin, I'll make just a few introductory comments and open it up to my colleagues if they would like to do the same. While we appreciate the time and the work put into the May revision, some of the proposed cuts from childcare to seniors are simply unacceptable While with HR1 upon us we must also ensure our counties have the support to implement its changes or risk losing even more people who depend on these services and causing unnecessary harm. To propose these cuts at a moment when the federal government has made harm a centerpiece of its mission, it is to ask us to watch our neighbors, friends and families struggle to survive, to maintain their pride, and to trust that we are there for them. As subcommittee chair of this committee, I will do my best to hold the line, to give voice to those who have none, and to ensure we are doing the least amount of harm possible because the threats we face now are both unavoidable and existential. I've always said from the very beginning that we will always prioritize the things that are going to keep as many Californians stable as possible. Now, we are not ignorant to the fact, though, that what the federal government has done to Californians is something that we cannot fully shield Californians from. The cuts are simply too big. But what we can do is make sure that our decisions are guided by the moral compass as set out by our full committee chair, Assemblymember Gabriel, and to make sure that we are not harming people who don't need to be harmed. And as I look through the May revision, there are things that are being proposed that go beyond H.R. 1, that go beyond what is necessary. And I believe that we can do more to serve and to save and to stabilize our population. And so this committee will continue to do just that. I want to make sure that everyone understands that we'll start listening to the panel speakers for the issues and the agenda. and then we'll take public comment after all the panels have concluded. There will be no votes taken in today's hearing. So I'm going to ask the first panel to come forward and take your seats at the witness table. Please introduce yourself before you speak, and let's try to go in the order listed in the agenda. And CDSS, you may begin when you're ready.

some of the questions in the agenda related to the slots as well. So in terms of the questions regarding the slots on the first one, for the first question we think it would first be helpful to clarify that our contractors and agencies are not rejecting slot increases. In our experience, the department contractors and agencies all share the same goal of expanding care and reducing unmet need. Some of the reasons why the general child care alternative payment agencies may relinquish funds includes as part of the normal contract review process, the department works with the contractors who have under earned the multiple years to identify how their contract can be adjusted to reflect their specific program model and expenditure trends. Again, this is not an indication that the contractor or agency is not committed to serving more kids and families, but could be to changes in both their community. as well as being able to sustain a smaller scale-up enrollment growth at this time. Another reason may be also that the general child care contractor approved license capacity is ultimately less than what they were written in their current award amount when they first wrote their RFA application. Typically, relinquishing funds are then reallocated to other contractors and agencies with a preference that it remains within the same county. And then the next question in regards to slots also has to do with the relinquished funds that are not being reallocated to other agencies and contractors. So as a result of federal and Proposition 64 reduction, the May revised proposal to observe the funding reduction through ongoing relinquishments to least harm for families that are currently not enrolled. The CDSS, though, however, is open to conversations with the legislator about how these fund reductions are appropriated across programs to maximize the total number of slots retained to minimize any disruptions of contracts and disenrollment of children. And then the next question, which is in regards to the process of new slot allocations. So the 2021 Budget Act authorized significant increases in funding to support enrollments for the CAP program. The allocation methodology uses census data, eligibility rules, and county-level cost information to identify where the unmet child care needs are the highest. Counties with the highest percentage of unserved eligible children receive the proportional more funding than ensuring equity across the statewide. last year cctr slot expansion funds were allocated through a request for application or an rfa process and at that time we were prioritizing infant toddler care in these communities and then and cdss continuously re-evaluates those allocation methodologies to really identify the most possible areas where we always want to do continuous improvement the file the final thing is to consider for any future allocation is to include evaluating the relatively size of the agency as well as the contractor's wait list, which we are starting to collect as far as our continuing funding application. Scale the level of growth based on the agency's previous enrollment trends. And for general child care contractors, prioritize contractors who have any previous award slots expansion funds already in contract and prioritize contractors that have immediate license capacity and existing space available for more children. Now I'll turn it back

for questions on each or would you like the whole presentation? Okay, so the next major policy that

Thank you. The Child Care Infrastructure Grant. So the budget includes two Child Care Infrastructure Grants. The first, as referenced in the initial Governor's proposal, the Prop 64 proposal was focused on the licensed family child care homes and licensed centers that experienced damage and services interruptions during the declared disasters in 2025, resulting in reduced child care availability and impacts to families who relied on these services. Recently, CDSS was notified in February of 2026 of an award in the amount of $28 million to support licensed child care facilities that were impacted for the disasters in 2023 and 2024, as well as supporting other deliverables. Of the $28 million in federal aura, $15.4 million will be used for the mini grants, and the remainder funds will be used for state operations of the minor repair infrastructure grants and continuity of certain quality services programs such as SIP an increase on that so that families in the affected areas can regain stable reliable and child care Because of each fund source and specific disasters in particular years, there is an overlap in the grants. specifically the federal ARA, will be available for those impacted in 2023-2024, and the grants available for Prop. 964 will be available for those impacted in 2025. The administration will be administrating these grants within DSS. And then the next one is the Alternative Payment Admin Rate. So the May revise includes a $65.1 million general fund for fiscal year 2627 to increase allowable in-contract administration costs for the Alternative Payment Program agencies by 1.5% of their total contract amount. This proposal reflects a transition of the $70 million included in the governor's budget, which has previously supported payments to administer outside of the contract structure. Maintaining separate and contract and out of contract funding streams for administrative costs has created administrative burdens reporting inconsistency and fiscal oversight challenges for the alternative payment program contractors as well as CDSS. The proposal covers administrative and supportive costs tied to implementations and maintaining the MOU with our child care provider United CCPU. The funds for the administration and support costs associated with the MOU are currently issued at a contract. And then the next one is the Low Income Investment Fund. So this proposal requests the appropriation of $1.5 million in general fund for existing infrastructure grant, IGP, to allow the department to continue to contract with the Low Income Investment Fund, LIFT, to ensure communities and timely closeout of the grants that contracts are more than 190 new construction and major renovations that are in the process. The Child Care Nutrition Program Reduction, we will defer to Department of Finance and the May Revise Preschool, we will defer to our CDA partners. We're happy to respond to questions when appropriate.

LAO. Good afternoon. Chair, members. Dylan Hoxler-Luzzo with the Legislative Analysts Office. As context for your entire hearing today, before getting into the child care proposals, we wanted to mention that we released a report today. This morning we released our analysis of the May revision evaluating the condition of the general fund. Overall, we find that the administration's proposals make progress towards addressing the structural deficit. The underlying condition of the budget is not sound. In particular, the budget relies on $20 billion in reserves, despite the state experiencing a revenue boom. Periods of increased revenues such as this are typically when the state should be strengthening its fiscal position rather than drawing it down As such we recommend the legislature one maintain the amount of solutions proposed by the administration two make discretionary reserve deposits and three not add new spending to the state existing commitments This assessment will inform our comments to the committee on the various proposals before you today. Shifting to our comments on child care, the May revision reduces 2026-27 child care spending by $61 million. dollars. We have comments on the largest of these changes. First, shifting reductions from general child care to CAP, the California Alternative Payment Program, presents trade-offs. We recommend that the legislature ask the administration to provide additional justification for applying a reduction to CAP and to explain why this approach would be better for families and providers over the long run. Several aspects of this program make a reduction to CAP less appealing. First, because the average cost per slot in CAP is lower than in general child care. A reduction to CAP would result in larger reductions to funded child care slots. As you'll see on page three of your agenda, based on the administration's estimates, the May revise reduces about 6,800 funded child care slots compared with the about 4,200 in the January budget. Additionally, slots funded through CAP typically reach families more quickly. And then lastly, this state in recent years, the state has had significant amounts of unspent funding in general child care, suggesting that a reduction to that program might have less of an impact on families. On the proposed child care cost of living reduction, we think that is reasonable, but we have concerns about consistency across programs. Those are the same concerns that we voiced regarding the January proposal. We recommend that any rate increases for child care and state preschool providers be provided consistently across all programs, specifically, you know, in terms of, for moving towards the alternative methodology, we think that providers that are serving similar children in similar settings should be getting similar rates. We also recommend adopting the removal of prospective pay funding. As the administration has already discussed, there is no longer a requirement to do and removing the proposal to adopt prospective pay saves the state $43.8 million in ongoing general fund and then $30.1 million in 2025-26. We also recommend rejecting the AP, or the Alternative Payment Program administrative shift. We have concerns with the proposal to replace a fixed $70 million for administrative costs with a 1.5 percentage point increase percentage point increase to the administrative rate AP agencies receive. Although the proposal provides $5 million in net savings in 2026-27, this change likely would create general fund cost pressures in future years. By providing funding as a percentage of contracts, funding for administrative costs would increase or increase by a larger amount any time child care slots or provider rates are increased, regardless of whether administrative workload increases. So we recommend rejecting this proposal. Lastly, we recommend exploring the alignment of the Federal Disaster Relief Grant and the Child Care Infrastructure Grant Program. We did just get some good information on that, but we do recommend the legislature request additional details regarding the Child Care Infrastructure Grant proposal to ensure that the two programs are well aligned, complement each other, and avoid duplication. I'm happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Italy's better So the Department of Finance. The May revision provides a total of two billion ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund and one billion ongoing non-Proposition 98 General Fund to support the California State Preschool Program, CSPP, in 26-27, which provides both part-day and full-day curriculum-based services for low-income eligible three and four-year-old children. Now there are various changes in the CSPP program that's being proposed for May revise, two of which are adjustments of decreases and three are increases within the program. I'll start with the decreases. So for the CSPP cost of living adjustment, the May revision proposes an ongoing decrease of $14.3 million Proposition 98 general fund and $7.8 million non-Proposition 98 general Fund to reduce the COLA for CSPP from 2.41% at the Governor's budget to 2.01% at May Revise. This is in alignment with other child care and development programs that are also being proposed for the May revision. The revised COLA would be redirected to provide a total of $33.3 million Proposition 98 General Fund and 18.1 million non-Proposition 98 General Fund for monthly cost of care plus payments to contractors for 26-27 and ongoing. Next for the CSPP prospective pay program, the May revision proposes to remove funding for CSPP prospective pay implementation included in the 2025 Budget Act. This is also in alignment on the child care side with what's being proposed there. Specifically for LEAs, this includes a decrease of 5.7 million Proposition 98 General Fund to assist local contractors with implementation, as well as a decrease of $704,000 one-time Proposition 98 General Fund for automation contracting costs. Additionally, for the non-LEA side, this includes a decrease of 2.7 million non-Proposition 98 General Fund to assist local contractors with implementation, as well as a decrease of $336,000 one-time non-proposition 98 general fund for automation contracting costs. This proposal also includes a decrease of $125,000 ongoing non-proposition 98 general fund and one position for CDE to have implemented the prospective pay in 25-26 and ongoing. Now as for some of the increases, there's the CSPP quality rating and improvement system block grant. So the May revision includes an additional $20 million ongoing Proposition 98 general fund for the CSPP quality rating and improvement system, QRIS, which provides support for quality early care and education programs. In addition, there are two BCPs in CSPP. One is for CSPP auditing support. The May revision includes 910,000 one-time non-Proposition 98 general fund each fiscal year, beginning in 26-27 through 28-29 for CDE to receive auditing support from the Office of State Audits and Evaluations to help address the existing backlog for CSPP audits. As for the last BCP and CSPP there is the CSPP rate reform implementation BCP The May revision proposes ongoing non 98 general fund for information technology resources to implement the single reimbursement rate structure for CSPP. Now I'll give an overview of some statutory changes within CSPP. Beginning with the CSPP cost of living adjustment and inclusion rates and age grouping framework TBL the May revision includes statutory changes to one specify the cost of living adjustment is approximately 2.01% for the cost of care plus payment calculation specifically for the 26-27 fiscal year and to prescribe how reimbursement rates are set under the single rate structure. These changes are in alignment with the may revision proposals on the DSS side as well. Next we have the CSPP family fee deductions TBL, the May revision proposes statutory changes beginning in the 26-27 fiscal year to require CSPP contractors to reimburse providers for the full amount of the certificate or voucher without reducing family fees and to collect these family fees. This proposal aligns with the governor's budget trailer bill proposal on the child care side specifically on family fee deductions. Next there's the CSPP eligibility portability TBL. The May revision proposes statutory changes to be added to extend the CSPP certification period for no less than 24 months when a family member transfers from one CSPP program to another or in cases when a child is voluntarily disenrolled for any period of time during that set eligibility. And finally there's the CSPP excuse absences and family fee waivers TBL. The May revision proposes statutory changes to one, include medical and educational appointments as excused absences in CSPP. Two, allow a contractor to claim attendance for days the child is not in attendance during suspension or expulsion appeals process. And three, specify that a family receiving child protective services may be exempt from family fees for up to one certification period rather than specifying just 12 months. This proposal is in alignment with current practices with the DSS child care program to maintain parity across programs. Now finally in response to the agenda question number four we want to note that the May revision provides the same 2.01% COLA for both CSPP and DSS child care and development programs to maintain parity for the COLA percentage across the programs. We also want to note that if the COLA for the Proposition 98 side of CSPP were to be increased, it would also need to be increased on the non-Proposition 98 side for both CSPP and child care to make sure that both programs receive the same percentages. We're also open to having further conversations on this with the legislature as we're working to reach a final budget agreement this spring. And with that, I'm available to take any questions.

Any questions for members at this time? Just a few questions. I mean, obviously, you can imagine that the State Assembly has been very vocal on the need to continue to expand and strengthen our child care system. And so you can imagine our response when we hear that a little over 6,000 slots were not utilized. Can you, number one, I understand that for those contractees, who for any given reason were unable to get those online. However, those slots should have been reallocated somewhere. And can you tell me exactly why they were not reallocated?

What are the primary counties that these slots would have gone to?

Okay. And why is the recommendation in the May revise, why is the recommendation not to reallocate but to terminate?

I understand from that perspective. I mean, there was times that particularly when we were facing a $70 billion deficit, the least amount of harm that could have been done was just to make sure that if they're not being filled, then we can do that. I'm not sure if we are that dire. I know LAO might disagree a little bit. They're getting more aggressive lately. I don't know. But I think we can because we had already allocated these funds it seems to me that these are going to help a lot of families And I think we're trying to provide as many Californians with as much relief as possible, given the fact that they're facing so many other headwinds from this federal administration. And so we do look forward to continuing this conversation as we go through the budget process. But I know for sure at this point in terms of eliminating 6,000 slots, that will be rejected from this committee. We are not going back. We're holding the line. And we have tried to be as clear as possible We all have our jobs to do But our job is to, as this committee Is to strengthen and expand Slots whenever we can And We may need to find ways That the legislature can be notified more when these slots are not being filled as intended because finding these out just in a January or May revise situation is not helpful in many cases. Let's talk about perspective pay. Obviously, we were trying to follow a federal requirement that we get to that direction. We had allocated funds to be able to do so. Do you believe that our providers would have been better off by continuing with prospective pay, or it would basically not really be much of an improvement to their fiscal situation?

How much would this have cost us?

Preschool Program, we are estimating that the total cost of prospective pay for CSPP would be a one-time cost. That would be in the hundreds of millions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to highlight the comments from Chair Jackson regarding the need for a more robust discussion regarding child care in general. I think that as what is mentioned, there's a very big chasm between what's recommended and what we are hearing on the ground from our constituents and what our policy positions that have been very clear regarding child care funding in these slots. And I just wanted to add how important that is. Childcare for me is infrastructure. It is just as important, if not more important, than our healthcare funding, transportation funding, housing funding. It is something that unlocks the economy. It's something that unlocks less crime. It helps, and it is literally one of the few things in the state budget that you can point to that affects and helps virtually everything. and it was a commitment. These slots are a commitment and I just wanted to say at this point I'm not comfortable voting on a budget that doesn't have more of a commitment to what has been said very publicly by this administration and the legislature which is doubling down on supporting that. So I would like to see movement on that. I am a first-term legislator so I will continue to be quite vocal about it but as the budget stands right now I won't be able to be supporting this on the floor unless I see dramatic changes in prioritizing our childcare. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Dr. Lupe Hyman-Milam, Deputy Director of the Child Care and Development Division at CDSS. To get started, I'm going to cover at high level the May revised trailer bill proposals as outlined in the agenda. In terms of the alternative methodology changes which included the age groupings and inclusive policy frameworks this proposal is to codify foundational policy elements to the single reimbursement structure by defining age rates categories and expanding accessible documentation for the enhanced inclusion rate to include an individual family service plan individual educational plan individual program plan section 504 plan or an incidental medical service plan The proposal would establish the necessary statutory framework to support future implementations of the single rate structure, enabling the department to begin proprietary activities to ensure alignment with the Joint Labor Management Committee recommendations. Terms of the age rate categories are as follows. children under two years of age, the care of whom will be reimbursed at the infant rate, children who are two years of age, the care of whom will be reimbursed at toddler rate, children who are three years of age to six years of age, inclusive, who are not yet enrolled in first grade, the care of whom will be reimbursed at the preschool rate. Children five years of age and older who are enrolled in the first grade or higher, the care of whom will be reimbursed at school age rate. The next one is the Alternative Payment Program Administration. This trailer bill corresponds to the already discussed related topic in the previous item one to the structure of the administrative funding for alternate payment programs. The next one is CalWORKs Child Care Eligibility. This proposal seeks trailer bill language to amend Welfare Institution Code to include participation in CalWORKs program activities such as education, training, job readiness, as well as eligibility need category for stage two, stage three, and childcare. To facilitate a streamless transition between the CalWORKs stages with minimal administrative burden on families and contractors, the WIC section requires the inclusion of additional data elements to be shared with CalWORKs stage two and three administrators. These changes will improve program alignment to reduce administrative burden to families and providers and strengthen the goal of the Transforming CalWORKs initiative. I will now turn it over to Chief Deputy Ramsey to continue with the next topic.

Thank you. The next one is Child Care Infrastructure Grant Recovery and Restoration. this trailer bill proposal ensures coordination use of all available disaster related funding including the newly awarded federal relief funds and the governor budget proposal of prop 64. this alignment straight within statewide disaster recovery efforts and maximizes funding impacts and helps stabilize the child care system for the long term. One last addition that we'd like to also include is the child care program oversight. For this one, this proposal includes cleanup to statutory language, governing fraud and overpayment preventions in child care and development programs, and provides CDSS with clear authority to issue mandatory guidance to child care and development contractors. The proposal also reflects the transition of these programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Social Services. Current law still identifies CDE as the lead agency for the oversight and error rate studies despite statutory transferring over to the CCDF Child Care and Development Fund authority to CDSS. I will now turn it over to the suggested questions in the agenda. First question has to do with the alternative methodology design. And so I want to start off first by stating that it would be helpful to distinguish between the alternative methodology and the single rate structure. So federal government requires states to assess how rates are adequately based on either the regional market rate survey or an alternative methodology that looks at the true cost of care. It's a tool, the alternative methodology, that estimates that true cost of care is delivering services rather than price of what parents can pay. However, the single rate structure is a little different. This is the state we are now. This is the unified reimbursement structure for all learning and care programs that will include specific rate categories that vary based on elements like age, geographical locations, and settings. As it relates to the alternative methodology, the governor's budget includes language to clarify that the department may use an alternative methodology in place of the market survey to align the timing of the alternative methodology survey with federal requirements. The department believes this language reflects what is needed at this time prior to the next alternative methodology being completed by July 1st of 2027. As it relates to the single rate structure, the May revise includes proposals to adopt two foundational elements by defining age rate categories and details around the enhancement inclusion rates. The CDSS is still evaluating all the other recommendations of the single rate structure policies and elements, including the Joint Labor Management Report, which we think are the remaining elements needed to finalize for the single rate structure. The next question has been is related to alternative payment agency services and considerations. In response to that, we have not done a cost study at this time, but in previous hearings, we've acknowledged that evaluating how the administrative rate and support cost structure is established under the single rate structure are important to have. And so we're happy to continue conversations regarding this topic. And the next question, in light of the APP relinquishment, should agencies have higher minimum service standards? And so the response to that is we assume that minimal service standards, the subcommittee means adopting and enrolling standards for voucher reimbursement similar to what Title V reimbursements are shifting for being based on in terms of enrollment level We are open to conversations as we share the goal to make sure that we're maximizing every slot in enrollment and families have the opportunity to meet those slots. Things, though, to consider is how do you incentivize enrollment growth while still ensuring contractors remain within their fixed contract amount and don't over enroll. The other piece to balance is what can be done with existing contracts and payment systems. But again, happy to continue this conversation. This concludes our overview and our responses. We're happy to take questions when appropriate.

with the legislature on this. Thank you for that. Anything else on Department of Finance? LAO?

I know you'll let us know. Have mercy. All right. Questions from committee members? Okay. Are we anticipating an additional trailer bill language, or have we seen everything already?

Okay. When do we anticipate it being posted?

Got it. Thank you. Really appreciate it. Thank you very much to this panel. We'll move on to part two. on human services issues. CDSS you may begin when you ready

Do you want me to pause on those or keep going with CalFish? Yeah, I wasn't sure. I was kind of debating with myself. So help me to understand at first in terms of our non-citizen brothers and sisters, it was first thought of that we were going to have 72,000 affected.

help me understand what drove that change what exactly why did it change like that yeah um a few

They just voluntarily left?

Explain chilling effect. Because I don't like the cold. And it's actually a little too cold in here for me. But anyway, explain the chilling effect. Sure.

of instability, doing everything I can, need some help. are there any real risks of participating in these California programs?

is the what about the decline number in abod work requirements that population what is causing the

to the place where we... But why are we seeing a reduction? I'm trying to figure out the why.

Even though they're citizens? Yes.

Okay. L.A.L., do you have any comments in regards to that chilling effect?

Okay. Standard utility allowance. Your chart talks about those who are going to have a decrease in benefits. But are there some who will be losing benefits? And how many that are not on this chart?

So I'm going to go rogue here. And when we talk about harm reduction, we can think of that in different ways. First, we can think about how do we make sure that we keep as many people enrolled as possible to prevent the harm from being kicked off due to not meeting the ABOD requirements. We can think about how we can – obviously, food banks have always been a part of our harm mitigation so that they have somewhere to go. I think we're at the point where food banks are meeting their max in terms of what they're able to do that's exceeding the need. What else could we be doing in terms of harm mitigation? Understanding nothing will be as efficient and impactful as CalFresh or CFAP. And where can we find that in the May revise?

bad things can happen from September to January when we come back. And I'm always looking for ways to make sure that while we're no longer here in Sacramento, although many people working here will be happy because we won't be here, that we want to always leave some type of contingency. I know we are in uncharted territory right now, But it seems to me that we could still be doing more. It will never meet all the needs, no doubt about that. But the type of instability that we're going to be seeing and the ripple effects of that just seems to me that we should be trying to do all that we can. and are there other things that we are not discussing? For instance, before H.R. 1, you may agree with me, you may not agree with me, counties were already underfunded in terms of being able to handle the requirements and the work that we have asked them to do. And it seems from the numbers that I seen that counties are still being shorted because even though the caseload has gone down I applaud the administration for putting additional dollars in I want to make sure that I recognize that. But at the end of the day, it's still a net negative. And that net negative goes on top of the negative they already were experiencing due to before H.R. 1. And by the way, administration continues to add in these cost shifts that adds on to that in many ways. How do we expect the counties to make it? It just doesn't – now, I'm a political science major, and I did that specifically so I can take as many less math classes as possible. It was my goal. But the math doesn't add up to me. And I'm wondering if you can help me understand that is at this point, the work that really has to be done is going to be on the shoulders of counties. And do you believe we're setting up counties for success? And this may revise. It can be Department of Finance or it can be administration. I don't care. I definitely want to add LAO to chime in as well, though.

DSS for additional comments. I'll just add a little bit of context that CalFresh is one of the programs where we previously completed a rebase a couple of years ago, a reassessment of funding. And as a result of that process, we did add in the hundreds of millions of dollars in the CalFresh program for administration, things like funding applications that are denied so that that work is covered, which didn't previously exist. So we did engage in a process to work through the methodology for CalFresh funding few years ago, and it resulted in significant new resources for the counties. As you have pointed out, and the counties certainly have pointed out as well, we certainly did all of that before HR1, and so these conversations have taken on a new life, for sure, under the changes to the program that are really unprecedented. So we are proposing that additional set of resources that the Department of Finance was referencing for the budget year, and then we'll be engaging again in the reassessment process for the triennial process during the budget year to inform the out years.

Ultimately, the methodologies that have been developed and that the administration has described are guides to help the legislature in determining the amount of funding that it wants to prioritize. It's difficult to identify a binary, incorrect, correct amount of funding. It depends on what the legislature wants to prioritize in this area versus other items in the budget, given limited resources. One thing I would note is that while the reduction in administrative funding due to the caseload change is certainly consistent with the typical practice and methodology. When there's rapid change in enrollment, particularly rapid declines in enrollment that leads to changes in funding, this can be difficult for counties from an administrative perspective to accommodate. This has been an issue that's come up in other health and human services administrative methodologies in recent years. The legislature could choose to provide more consistent with its priorities, but if it does so, we would recommend that the legislature identify offsetting savings elsewhere in the budget to avoid adding to the state's ongoing commitments.

I don't have a recommendation in terms of what the specific amount of funding should be. Again, this really is a question of legislative priorities. The budget is constructed consistent with past practice, and the administration has put forward what it believes is appropriate, but it's perfectly reasonable for the legislature to disagree on that.

In recognition of the increased demand that we were just referencing, the May revision proposes $30 million in total funds, which is also $30 million general fund, one time in 26-27 to augment the CalFood program baseline funding of $8 million general funds. So there's a total proposed of $38 million in 26-27. Food banks use this funding to distribute food purchased with their share of the CalFood allocation as part of their regular food distributions, including the Federal Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to supplement the mix of food that would otherwise be available by including fresh California-grown commodities. I will continue on. So item four for CalFresh is related to the State Administrative Expense Adjustment, or SAE. The SAE target serves as a planning threshold for administrative costs for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, which we know as CalFresh in California. It's a target that's set by the Food and Nutrition Services Administration. In federal fiscal year 2025, for the first time, the state exceeded our SNAP SAE target

And this is the $9 million?

Noelle Fakadi, Department of Finance.

Okay. Okay. That looks like a lot of money. I always wonder if there's any job openings I should be applying for.

Okay. Let's go on to the next item.

Thank you for that question on this item.

Thank you, Chair Jackson. I, too, was a political science major, and I did take math classes as required by my major. And I will say the math—

The math is not mathing. The math is not mathing in this proposal. I want to thank the chair for your leadership and advocacy on protecting our most vulnerable populations. I also just wanted to preface my comments by mentioning that the May revision appears to be the highest level of general fund balances and reserves ever included in a May revision proposal in the history of the state of California. I think it 30 inclusive of the general funds 32 billion dollar fund balance in the May revise the 9 billion proposed to be deposited temporarily to the projected surplus temporary holding account and 25 billion dollars held in the rainy day fund. And I will say that it is raining outside. So I think we're very far apart And I know that this is sort of what the legislative and budgetary process is like, but it doesn't sit well with me how far we are apart. And I just want to also point out that with that May revise coming out last Thursday, it appears to be that our revenues are much better than anticipated, largely or at least due to a great part because of Silicon Valley industry that I represent. But I want to continue to bring up attention to CalFresh and the populations that are at risk of losing their benefits. That was briefly talked about due to H.R. 1. Specifically, the reclassification of families with dependents, age 14 to 18, as able-bodied adults without dependents. that is going to result in the estimates that I am receiving. 59,177 individuals who have children begin their three-month limit of benefits beginning on June 1st. And it's also estimated that these families of up to 70% of them will begin losing their access to SNAP beginning October 1st. Is that correct?

that I would say is that we have had a number of conversations about the urgency with which we are working to preserve benefits for as many people as possible under HR1, including individuals who are subject to the ABOD rule. So the parents that you are referencing are those who have become newly subject to the rule because of the age of their children. If we have any reason to exempt them based on the data that we already have or can obtain, that is our first priority. If we're unable to exempt them, then screening them to see if they are already compliant with the rules or if If we can provide support through employment and training and other services to help them become compliant with those rules. would prevent them from losing their benefits. Having said that, I think we have all acknowledged that the expectation of the federal government is that a significant number of people will lose benefits, and we do recognize that despite our best efforts, it is likely that there will be individuals who will lose benefits. But we are doing everything that we can to minimize that number. Thank you.

Older than I thought you were. Wow.

The May revision presented to you by the administration reflects sort of our plan to address the stability of the budget sort of on an ongoing basis. As we know, though, the ultimate budget adopted reflects agreement between the legislature and the administration. I think the only note I would say is that as we work to develop a balanced budget, we sort of think about sort of the relative tradeoffs, sustaining that stability over the long run. Having heard your comment about sort of reserves, that will certainly be a key point of discussion within the legislature and the administration about what's the appropriate level to sort of mitigate potential future economic conditions and revenue volatility.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Assembly member, thank you very much for your passion and your lived experiences. I remember those food stamps as well that got us through a lot of hard times. As a matter of fact, I remember the first time, the first Christmas, that there were no gifts. And it was probably the hardest conversation my parents had, my mother had to have with me. And she asked me, is it okay that instead of gifts this year, that I buy you socks and underwear? Right? And so these are real things that we have to continue to understand from the point of view of those who are just trying to make it through, just trying to survive in a state that promised that your dreams can come true. And I think we're still trying to find ways to make sure that we stop lying to people. California dream does not exist right now And how do we make sure that we revive that in a meaningful way so that future generations can be on a pathway to thrive like so many of us were able to when our families were in survival mode, But somehow, through the support systems and through a lot of people along the way, gave us an opportunity to be here today. Okay. I'm wondering, first, I want to make sure that Department of Finance has an opportunity, if there's any other comments you want to make on any of these items. I think I jumped from, I jumped around a little bit. You guys okay? LAO, is there anything you would like to make in terms of these? At one point, do we believe, LAO, we hear you loud and clear, we're on borrowed time. and where is the balance, do you believe, in terms of balancing what we know are some structural deficits, expenditures exceeding revenues, Obviously, understanding that we can't do everything we may want to do when it comes to H.R. 1, but we have to make sure that our fiscal house is in order. What is the balance between making sure that we don't make the same mistake, though, as this legislature did during the Great Recession? A whole lot of people were hurt. A whole lot of instability happened. And it wasn't until a decade that we were, these populations were able to recover from that. At what point does, do we also have to make sure that we're not creating so much instability that it ends up costing us more in the long term? Any thoughts about what is that balanced approach? Right? I mean, this is unfortunately one of the few committees that actually have to think about this in a more meaningful way. And obviously we're in uncharted territory. And we got to figure out what is the appropriate balance. and what are your thoughts about that? Social cost versus fiscal cost. And at some point, if the social cost is so much, we could be spending another decade digging our way out of this stuff, spending more than what we would have spent if we would have just kept them on the services that we're currently providing them.

Department of Finance, I mean, obviously, there's no doubt that this legislature agrees in terms of making sure that we are not handing over a deficit to the next administration. Definitely something I believe is the right thing to do. But it seems to me that this administration is also locking in some long-term expenditures that are also adding to the structural deficit At the same time, trying to get the legislature not to do the same thing And so can you explain why the administration is choosing to add additional long-term spending as opposed to one-time spending? Are there specific examples within the human services, department of social services space you would note? I couldn't speak to new augmentations in other areas. Well, I'm just speaking overall. I mean, there's no doubt. I mean, LAO, you say there are some additional long-term expenditures, correct? That are being proposed in the May revise?

So what is the biggest driver of taking out – dipping into the reserves. What's the biggest driver for doing, for the administration to do that?

Much in the health and human services world, correct? What are the part of the human services that are adding to that need? What are our big program drivers?

Okay. Got it. Okay. Any other questions for members? Assembly member?

Thank you very much to this panel. Thank you. Thank you to the sergeants for recalibrating the temperature. It's nice and comfy. I hope no one tries to take a nap while we're here. Administration, you may begin when you're ready. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Claire Ramsey with the Department of Social Services. I will start with item 7, the impact on IHSS of reinstatement of the Medi-Cal asset limit. The May revise is proposing a reduction of million in general fund in 26 to conform IHSS with the reinstatement of the Medi asset limit for seniors and adults with disabilities to for an individual and $3,000 for a couple. This would be effective no sooner than January 1st of 2027. The current asset limit is $130,000 for an individual and $195,000 for a couple. We have a few questions that we're answering. Our first question is to please confirm or correct the number of people who are estimated. There are 7,755 IHSS recipients estimated to lose Medi-Cal, excuse me, IHSS in 26-27 as a result of the reinstitution of the $2,000-$3,000 asset limit. And this is in addition to the 15,509 recipients already projected to lose Medi-Cal in FY26-27 as a result of the current asset limit policy. Additionally, the estimate reflects an additional 11,166 IHSS recipients who will lose Medi-Cal in 2728, and that's in addition to the 22,333 recipients already projected to lose Medi-Cal in FY2728 as related to the partial reinstatement of the asset limit. The next question was what will home, excuse me, what home and community-based alternatives to care will people have? We do want to acknowledge that this proposal impacts IHSS eligibility as a function of Medi-Cal eligibility because IHSS is a service of Medi-Cal, but this does mean that individuals who are receiving IHSS have not lost their need for home and community-based services. We do know that individuals who are regional center eligible may have access to additional services through the developmental services system. And we know that other individuals may be able to access some services in their communities through Older American Act funding, but generally acknowledging that there isn't a broad replacement for IHSS unless individuals can privately pay for home care. Next question is, what are the likely personal and medical impacts to people and additional costs to the state? It is our understanding that impacted individuals will lose their Medi-Cal, which means they will have lost their health insurance for other medical services and not just IHSS. But we would have to defer to the Department of Health Care Services regard to the medical services. With regard to personal care impacts, we would refer back to the alternatives in the community that may be available that individuals could see. Next, moving on to item 8, auto termination of IHSS to align with Medi-Cal. The January budget proposed savings of $86 million associated with automating the process of terminating and reinstating IHSS in tandem with Medi-Cal eligibility, which also determines eligibility for IHSS. We will note that the May revision reflects an updated estimate of savings associated with this proposal to $56.3 million in general fund savings in 2627. This is a reduction of savings of $29.7 million from the governor's budget. This is related to an updated projection of the number of IHSS residual recipients, how many will be impacted. In the January budget, it was estimated slightly over 10,000 cases would be impacted, and in this May revision we are estimating 6 IHSS cases will be impacted by this policy change The proposal involves automating terminations from the IHSS residual program with the loss of Medi coverage when individuals do not complete the redetermination process beginning in 2627. The first question in the agenda asks us about county advocate legislative and other stakeholder feedback we've received related to this proposal and whether it's altered our thinking. I do just want to acknowledge that the department has had a number of different conversations with a wide array of stakeholders. And just last week, we held a meeting as requested by the chair with our county partners, legal advocates, recipients, providers, public authorities, unions to really hear back on our various proposals. We did appreciate the feedback and the good conversation that was had during those meetings. We do know that people have lifted up to us that there is a gap in understanding between Medi-Cal eligibility and its connection to IHSS eligibility and have flagged that that may be one place to lean in. We have also identified that there may be opportunities to outreach or to provide more messaging to people before they ever lose Medi-Cal eligibility because that is really at the crux of all this is the initial loss of Medi-Cal. We've also heard that additional notices or messaging on notices issued by both DHCS and our department could be helpful to add clarity and make the connection points and the next actions required by individuals more clear. So we have taken note of all these concerns and all the potential solutions raised. We are looking at what preventative measures can be taken to keep people from losing IHSS in the first place. We are exploring both what are cost-neutral proposals, including messaging on our website, messaging on notices of action, and potentially what other solutions might be available but could potentially have a cost associated, like outreach, before people lose Medi-Cal. We are continuing to review these proposals and are happy to continue conversations both with our stakeholders and with the legislature about how to move forward on this proposal in a way that keeps people on their Medi-Cal and on their IHSS. Moving to item nine, H.R. 1 impacts on IHSS related to qualified non-citizens. So to be clear, H.R. 1 amends the federal definition of qualified noncitizens by removing several immigration statuses as eligible for federal financial participation, Medi-Cal. Effective October 1st of 2026, certain categories of lawfully present noncitizens will no longer be eligible for federally funded full scope Medi-Cal. Consistent with our Department of Health Care Services policy assumptions, these individuals will remain eligible for IHSS through IHSS residual program until June 30th of 2027. So basically what would happen is individuals under the HCS's proposal and our proposal, the HCS would keep individuals on state-only Medi-Cal, and as such, the Department of Social Services would keep individuals on our IHSS residual program for the same length of time. As of July 1st, 2027, those individuals would move into restricted scope Medi-Cal and would no longer be eligible for IHSS at that time. We would note that we do have to make automation changes to our CMIPs system to operationalize these HR1 policy requirements We were asked a couple of questions How many recipients will be impacted by this proposal We worked with our colleagues at Department of Health Care Services and estimate that approximately 2 cases will move from federally funded Medi to state Medi because of these new qualified non federal requirements So that would be how many people move over in 26-27, and then we anticipate the same number of cases would move off of IHSS in 27-28 and ongoing as those cases moved into restricted scope Medi-Cal. The next question was what home and community-based services alternatives to care for these people. Just to reiterate that because this proposal is actually a proposal to add funding to keep people on state-only Medi-Cal, these individuals would have access to their same IHSS services throughout the budget year. And then beyond, we understand that people may have to make hard choices related to their care, including looking to see if there are alternatives in the community to help support them if they have family or are able to private pay. But we recognize not all individuals have families or the ability to private pay under those circumstances. What are the likely personal and medical impacts? Again, we think that this proposal is beneficial for individuals because it does allow them to stay on their full scope Medi-Cal and on their IHSS throughout the budget year. But we do recognize that once they move to restricted scope that they may have more limited access to both the health care services and to home and community-based services. Moving on to item 10, the IHSS permanent backup provider system. The governor's budget proposed $3.5 million in general fund reduction to eliminate the in-home supportive services backup provider system, also sometimes referred to as BUPs, beginning in 26-27. After reviewing program data, we did find that BUPs had been utilized less than we anticipated, and that request for backup providers that we anticipated would grow as the system came online. have not occurred. In addition, we have noted and has been noted by this committee that the administrative costs have exceeded the cost of actual services. We do understand that it is a significant level of work for the counties and public authorities to locate providers, so we do understand why some of those costs have been higher, but noting that most of the costs have been driven by the admin costs. The May revision does make an update to these estimates for $3.2 million dollars in general fund saving in 26-27 and that is based on updated caseload data and IHSS cost drivers. Moving to item 11, local IHSS collective bargaining trailer bill language. This proposal would add enforcement provisions related to collective bargaining agreements for IHSS provider wages and benefits. Specifically, counties that have not reached an agreement by July 1st of 26 would be required to reach an agreement with the employee organization within 90 days. Failure to reach an agreement within that time frame would result in the withholding of a portion of 1991 realignment funding, regardless of whether the county is operating under an expired collective bargaining agreement. And the current penalty is 10%. This penalty language has been in place since FY23-24. However, the loophole that's being closed here is the original language didn't account for counties that had never had a collective bargaining agreement and thus were able to basically not have to comply with this penalty proposal. We do not see any cost to the state of this proposal. With that, I will pause. Those are all the IHSS items. Happy to answer any questions.

LAO. Ginny Bella, LAO. Before turning to my colleague for our IHSS comments, I did want to follow up on a question you had a few minutes ago about the level of ongoing new spending proposed in the budget. So overall, the budget has $1.3 billion in new spending proposals, $170 million of which are ongoing proposals. And they're primarily not in the HHS world. They're in the resources area. So very little compared to the overall new spending, $170 million out of $1.3 billion. And the rest are based upon the ongoing increase in cost of the current programs we are in. Other increases, right, are workload budget.

I'll turn to my colleague now for IHSS. Yes.

Just a few questions for myself. I believe that, number one, just want to reiterate, and of course we'll look forward to any further conversations. but at this point, item number eight, this committee will be rejecting that item pending further conversations as well as issue number 10. We mentioned the legislature still, this committee still feels the need to have a backup provider system. However, we are equally concerned about the unbalanced costs that are associated with that. CDSS, are you going to provide any ideas on how we can bend that cost curve as opposed to elimination? Or are we just going to not move forward with this item?

I just want to reiterate that in the time that we had our first hearing on this item, we mentioned the same thing and the need to take our concerns seriously. And so that was a few weeks ago. that we brought this up. So again, if you want to see this item be addressed, I suggest we engage in conversations earnestly because this is, you're going to back into one of our red lines here. Excuse me, Mr. Turner, just catch our Department of Finance.

Okay. We'll have further conversations on this, but I just want to reiterate item number 10 and 8 again. that further conversations need to be had with this committee. And I'll leave it at that. Okay. Any additional questions or comments on IHSS Dr Sharp Thank you I know I had to rush back This is a really important conversation for me as we had a press conference last week in regards to making sure that we pushed our governor, knowing that we have rejected three different things. And I'm happy to hear that this committee is still moving to reject item number eight and number 10, because when you think about the budget itself, we often it is said that our budget is a statement of our values. And I think that it's time that we continue to make sure that it is a true statement based on on our values. And to me, this offers an opportunity for us to be able to move forward, knowing that IHSS funding, it represents cost savings. And we need to continue to do everything we can to make sure that folks are able to really survive and thrive at home. And so I would like to just say thank you to our chair for reiterating the fact that we are going to continue to reject and highlighting number eight and number 10. I do hope that we can continue to push our governor and push others. But that press conference, to me, it actually said a lot. When it comes to this process, the validation that comes from care in a setting that is most comfortable was something that we should constantly be actually thinking about. And the recognition of the demanding nature of the work for hundreds of thousands of IHSS workers statewide is something that we need to continue to think about. And finally, really having an understanding of the sacrifices made by family members who commit themselves to providing for a loved one. We need to continuously think about that. So I don't want us to accept these types of cuts from our federal government. I want us to continue to do exactly what we're doing here, standing boldly and in solidarity with all of our workers to make sure that recipients alike continue to say that enough is enough. And I'm saying that enough is enough. So I will continue to push to make sure that we are rejecting these cuts. And so as it stands, I will not be supporting any budget items until these things are fixed as it pertains to IHSS workers. Thank you. I want to just point out another item that's not listed here, and that is the proposed cost shift in terms of IHSS as well. And so just want to make sure you also know that this committee is not supportive of that effort. Also, we are highly worried about multiple cost shifts that have occurred that are being proposed on this budget. And what that does to the huge amount of work we're asking them to do due to H.R. 1 as well. So looking forward to further conversations on that also. I want to thank this panel. We'll move on to Adult Protective Services. And while we transition Adult Protective Services, just some housekeeping items here. we are going to be waiving some presentations and we're going to be just to say we want to get to as much public comment as possible and so we're going to be waiving some presentations that does not mean this committee is in agreement with them it just means that we are choosing to waive them and we'll have some further conversations throughout the budget process as well So we be waiving items number 18 to 37 You welcome We'll be waiving items 41 through 43. We'll be waiving items 45 to 47. And we'll be waiving items 49 and 50. Okay. DDS, you do not get a pass. We waiting for you, baby. That's right. Okay, let's go to Adult Protective Services. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Jennifer Troia again on behalf of the Department of Social Services. Item number 12 is a proposal to repeal the Adult Protective Services program expansion. It was authorized through AB 135 in 2021. It lowered the APS eligibility from age 65 to age 60. The proposal would reduce associated funding by $70 million from the State General Fund for the Adult Protective Services Program. It assumes implementation of these changes effective July 1, 2026. I will also note that in addition to broadening the population that was eligible for APS, AB 135 included an expansion of longer-term case management services for clients with more complex needs, as well as providing APS to individuals experiencing homelessness and housing services that were provided through APS, including housing support and navigation in addition to the HomeSafe program. These expanded services and the funding for them would also be eliminated with this proposal. Adults 60 to 64 who meet the definition of dependent adults would continue to be eligible for APS. However, those additional services I just referenced added under AB 135 would no longer be available through APS regardless of age. With that, you had a couple of questions in the agenda, and I'll turn it over to the Chief Deputy Director to respond to those. Thank you, Chair Jackson and members. Claire Ramsey for CDSS. Your first question was what other services may be available for those who would lose access to APS? And prior to the expansion, what do we know about how this population was served? I would just highlight that previous to this expansion, individuals 60 to 64 were served, as Director Troia mentioned, if they were considered to be dependent adults. And that would continue to be true if this reverted back to the original definition. So therefore, we would still see service of individuals 60 to 64, but it would be more limited. However, more broadly, individuals between the ages of 60 and 64 who did not qualify under dependent adult would no longer be eligible for APS services. And we do acknowledge that there is no specific alternative service that replicates what Adult Protective Services does for these individuals. Although there are, you know, other community supports related to emergency rooms or, you know, police and other services of that kind in their communities. The next question was... Will the funding affect counties' ability to retain APS personnel in the counties? And how will they specifically contract their staffing and service delivery? It is our understanding from the California Welfare Directors Association and from the counties that it is possible that this proposal will impact the ability of APS to retain staff in county offices. we don't have we don't you know those aren't our employees but that's our understanding from them we know that our ab-135 funds were primarily used to hire staff across APS and we're not specifically directed toward that expansion but we're basically used as a part of their budget toward funding their staff and to to maintaining their entire workload including that additional work for those 60 to 64. We do think it is possible because of the changes that they cannot maintain and would not be able to maintain their current workload. Obviously, there are a couple items that would come out specifically that they would no longer be required to do if this rule went into effect, but also obviously they wouldn't be serving those 60 to 64-year-olds any longer in this program. The next question was what level of savings could be achieved if the state allowed you to continue age 60 to 64 but eliminated the other services. It's actually a hard question for us to answer. The funds are incorporated into the overall APS county allocations and are not tracked separately from broader APS program funding. So as a result, it's not possible to identify or isolate expenditures tied solely to the age expansion once distributed to counties. So just wanted to clarify that. How will this cut impact senior homelessness in California? So as Director Troia mentioned, this proposal would eliminate expanded homeless services as provided by APS that were tied to the AB 135 expansion. We do understand there are some limited services would still be available through APS. I do want to note that the funding does not change the funding related to HomeSafe. However, it does apply those same definitional changes to HomeSafe. So we do think there would be less services under HomeSafe for individuals 60 to 64 who do not qualify as a dependent adult. More broadly, because HomeSafe has time-limited funding, Some counties have reported that they don't have separate HomeSafe staff. Instead, they use their APS staff as a staff to work on HomeSafe, and that could be also impacted by this proposal. And generally, we do want to acknowledge that we know the older adult homeless population is growing, and I recognize that that was part of the question, too, but those 65 and older would continue to be able to receive HomeSafe services as an older adult. Finally, your – oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. That was your last question. Happy to answer anything else. Department of Finance? Thomas Locke, Department of Finance. Nothing for her to add this time. LAO? Juwan Trotter, LAO. So our main comments regarding this proposal are laid out in the agenda, but one that we would want to further emphasize here is – and it was mentioned by the administration – is that because the funds allocated in the APS expansion, were allocated to counties to be spent on APS programs more broadly Any reductions in APS services as a result of this proposal will likely impact APS recipients including those age 65 and over and those outside the expansion group. Referring to or follow up on one of the questions regarding continuing to fund APS for the the 60 to 64 age population. I think a follow up question could be that you may want to ask the administration is what would it take to establish a sort of methodology to provide that age based funding level for that expansion population that either does or does not include the expanded services that were part of the APS expansion. Thank you very much. Questions or comments from committee members on this? Seeing none, I'll just make it quick. This committee is going to be rejecting this item for pending further conversation. Our seniors are too fragile at this point. Highest number of population falling into homelessness. We're going to hold the line. We're going to hold the line. We cannot allow these seniors to have an opportunity to fall into homelessness. Looking forward to further conversations on the item. Moving on to immigration services. You may begin when you're ready. Thank you, Chair. Jennifer Troia on behalf of the Department of Social Services again. Item 13 relates to immigration legal services. The May revision proposes a one-time $20 million allocation for immigration legal services in addition to the ongoing and the ongoing services. annual budget of $75 million for these services. This immigration legal services funding is intended to increase legal services capacity to help more Californians who are facing immigration court proceedings, particularly for individuals who are in civil immigration detention. To provide some additional context and respond to the question in your agenda, I will turn it over to the director of our Office of Equity. Good evening, Chair and members of the committee. Eliana Kamowitz with the Department of Social Services. In response to your agenda questions, out of the ongoing amount of $75 million, the department currently allocates $10 million annually for removal defense programs to represent clients currently in or facing removal proceedings. In state fiscal year 2526, the department bolstered these investments by funding $5 million for a two-year program representing individuals in detention, and also added $14 million across two years to the removal defense program with the one-time One California allocation. These supplemental funds roughly doubled the annual investment for removal defense services to about $20 million for removal defense services annually. In addition to these investments there are separate investments that are youth which in this state fiscal year includes million for youth legal services as well as the million investment for CHIRP As the number of Californians facing deportation proceedings has risen nonprofits have struggled to meet the demand for services. Hiring immigration attorneys with the skills and experience to secure clients released from detention and represent them in immigration court has become increasingly difficult. To meet the immediate demand and extend the capacity of our nonprofit partners. This funding would further tap into the expertise of California's existing attorney pool to assist with immigration cases and expand nonprofit capacity to represent Californians in immigration court and help get individuals held in civil immigration released. We plan to work closely with service providers to determine the specific strategies that will be funded. The strategies implemented will be based on what best achieves intended outcome while remaining cost effective within the proposed allocation. Also, the strategies may differ by region, depending on factors such as the availability of attorneys as well as the presence of immigration courts and detention centers. Happy to answer any questions. Questions on this item, members? Seeing none, we'll move on to CalWORKs. Again, Jennifer Troia on behalf of the Department of Social Services. As you know, CalWORKs provides temporary cash assistance to low-income eligible families with children along with education, employment, and training programs and supportive services. aid payments in the program, so the maximum amount of grants that we provide, are determined by the family size and by region. The May revision includes $6.2 billion in total funds, $682 million of which are general fund, in 25-26, which is a decrease from the governor's budget. In 26-27, the May revision proposes $6.3 billion, $963.8 million of which is general fund for the CalWORKs program, which reflects a net decrease of $184.2 million from the governor's budget. The net decrease reflects faster caseload decline and slower growth in the employment services caseload than we previously projected. With that, I will turn it over to the Deputy Director to cover items 14 and 15. So, Alexis Fernandez-Garcia with the Department of Social services. On item 14, the May revision proposes $59.5 million in 2627 for an ongoing MAP increase of 1.8% effective October 1, 2026, funded with revenues in the Child Poverty and Family Supplemental Support subaccount. The increase will bring the non-exempt MAP level from $1,175 to $1,196 per month for an assistant unit of three residing in a high-cost county, which is a $21 increase from current levels and equates to 53% of the 2026 federal poverty level. As it relates to item 15, CalWORKs special needs notices of action. Currently, CalSAUS, the state's eligibility system, lacks automation for standardized notices of actions related to special needs payments, resulting in inconsistent communication and potential delays in ending payments when required. The May revision proposes to provide total fund in 26 to automate new standardized NOAAs or notices of action in CalSaws for those special needs requests The automation will ensure clear approval or denial notices, timely discontinuance of payments, and proper notification of hearing rights for CalWORKs families. Happy to take any questions. Department of Finance. Noelle Falcachi, Department of Finance. Nothing further to add on these items. Aleo. Ryan Woolsey, Legislative Analyst's Office. Based on our preliminary review of the CalWORKs budget, the grant increase estimate seems reasonable to us and we don't have anything to add on the special needs notice of action item. Okay. Members of the committee, anything on these items? Seeing none, we will move on to children's programs. Still Jennifer Troia on behalf of the Department of Social Services. Child welfare services include family support and maltreatment prevention services, child protective services, foster care services, and adoptions. Our child welfare system provides a continuum of services to children who are either at risk of or have suffered from abuse and neglect. Our children and family services programs in the revised budget have a budget of total of $10.6 billion, $1.1 billion of which is general fund in 26-27, which reflects an increase of $180 million, $75.2 million of which is general fund from the governor's budget. With that, I will hand it to the deputy director to cover items 16 and 17. Good evening, Angie Schwartz with the Children and Family Services Division at the Department of Social Services. Item 16 pertains to the Child Welfare Services California Automated Response Engagement System, which is to replace the Child Welfare Services case management system with a compliant, comprehensive child welfare information system in order to keep the needs of local child welfare practitioners at the forefront and meet the regulations and policies of state and federal law. We will be delivering the CWS CARE solution through two versions. VERSION 1 IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE THE FUNCTIONALITY REQUIRED TO DECOMMISSION CWS CMS, SUPPORT NEW POLICIES AND PROGRAMS SUCH AS THE FAMILY FIRST PREVENTION SERVICES ACT AND THE TIERED RATE STRUCTURE AND LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR FULL CWIS COMPLIANCE. THAT IS SCHEDULED FOR STATEWIDE IMPLEMENTATION IN OCTOBER OF 2026. VERSION 2 IS INTENDED TO BUILD ON THAT CORE FUNCTIONALITY OF VERSION 1 AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL capabilities to bring the CWS CARE system into full compliance with the CWIS requirements and is anticipated for April 2028. The CWS CARE's budget for fiscal year 2627 is in alignment with the special project report six published in May of 2023 and includes a total of $357,316,000, which is $179,774,000 general fund, $176,794,000 federal funds, and $748,000 in reimbursement. Happy to take Any questions? In terms of item number 17, that deals with the Title IV-E stipend project. The proposal requests $18.4 million one-time general fund in fiscal year 26-27 to provide continuity for currently enrolled bachelors of social work and masters of social work programs. The Title IV-E stipend program provides professional education and monetary support to students seeking a bachelor's or master's degree in social work for students who intend to pursue or continue a career in the field of public child welfare. Students who complete their degree are required to complete their service requirement of 24 months with a qualifying agency. The 4E stipend program is a significant support for building and sustaining the child welfare workforce. Guidance released by the Administration for Children and Families in March of 2025 clarified how the 4E calculation works for the stipend program and requires us to make some adjustments. In order to correct the calculation, universities need to come up with an additional match. The $18.4 million requested will allow universities time to adjust and allow current students to continue with their studies. Very important program. Probably the most important program in the world. MSWs are very important people. Just want to make sure you're... I am very biased. Department of Finance. So, Hamanzo, we're the Department of Finance. Nothing further to add. LAO, would you agree MSWs are the only flag? Jenny Bella, Legislative Analyst's Office. On the CWS CARES proposal, as was mentioned, it aligns with the most recent project report for this particular project, and so we have no concerns it was expected. on the Title IV-E stipend project. We're still reviewing this. Mostly we have questions about what it means long-term, since this is a one-time solution, what is the ongoing approach and what it means for universities to adjust and whether that's something that takes work. What does that mean? What does the administration have to do to facilitate that? And if it doesn't happen, what would be the impact on the number of social workers that are able to go through the program? Absolutely. Questions from committee members on this item? Okay. Awesome. Thank you very much on these items. We will now waive items 18 to 37, and we will go to item number 38. DDS. Maybe gain when you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members and staff. Pete Chervenka, Director, Department of Developmental Services. Very quick overview from a revision, super fast. I appreciate you tried to take number 41 off the agenda but I going to refer to it anyway very quickly Pleased to present a budget for a department that does not include budget solutions per se Our budget is proposed at billion That's about $300 million higher than the governor's budget. As I just said, the numbers in issue 41 are important. I'd like to call out that despite that increase, we're actually down nearly $80 million in general fund and up almost half a billion dollars in federal funding claiming. It's an opportunity to appreciate, of course, the teams that we have with regional centers and at the department making progress on that, but also appreciate the legislature approving fiscal sustainability resources in a prior budget. With that dedicated effort, we've managed to secure a significant improvement in our federal claiming effort. So while it's not a budget solution, I would say that that's a massive investment in our ability to sustain our programs. In a budget that big, $21.6 billion, we only have two non-technical proposals. They're both equity-focused, and they advance the implementation of Olmstead. They're informed by listening to our community, particularly as we undertook and continue to undertake the standardization of the intake process with regional centers. Both of those substantive proposals include trailer bill language. Yes, they are policy, but they are also important fiscal policy direction that will inform how we spend next year's budget. We are in this budget and those proposals moving to long-term planning. We're informed by the learnings that we've had in the past. My team, I will make way for them in just a minute, and they'll explain more in detail. One is to limit the duration of people's residency inside of state-operated facilities. I think we can all agree if I told you that I wanted you to live there for 20 years, you would look at me and say, why would I want to do that? we have people doing that and we think that doing the right thing by them to get them out is a critical policy direction to move. And the second, we hear a lot about equity. We've talked with the legislature for several years about equity in our system and in our standardization of the intake process. We really believe that we need a consistent needs assessment across all of California 21 regional centers. Where you live should not matter when it comes to deciding whether you have access or not to our services. Both of these are multi-year efforts. They're complex. We admit there's still much to work through. We think we need to start somewhere, and there's lots of time with both proposals to figure that stuff out, engage, engage with the community, to plan and direct resources, and put in that kind of effort before we affect individuals. So I just want to make a plug for the couple of things that you're going to hear about. One that you also waived, but is an important key piece. When I talk about not having people live in our facilities, they have to have someplace to go. And so one of these proposals, it's number 47, which we won't hear today. There is trailer bill language on that one that merges those two funding proposals, but also provides some ability to be more directive about the alternative placement options that we can develop in the community. So there's a nexus between number 41 and our proposal to impose time limits on some facilities. Really pleased to present this budget to you today I am grateful that I am not among the colleagues that have a harder job than I do here We are forward looking ahead to the future trying to make the world a better place and really proud of the team that going to talk to you in more detail about those proposals starting with Mr. Yang Lee next to me. Thank you, sir. Great. So Yang Lee with Department of Development Services on issue number 38. It will be really brief because we talked a lot about this issue already. This is the federal grievance process. The governor's budget included resources and statute changes in order to implement that. May revision includes resources for the regional centers to also comply with the increased workload related to that policy change. So just want to make sure that they have adequate resources to do the work that is expected of them. Happy to take any questions. Keep going. 39. My colleagues will come up. Y'all better come up to the front row. We're going to go fast here now. Thank you. I will be very brief. Dana Simon with the Department of Developmental Services, Deputy Director. The department is requesting funding for the support of an additional rate model for early start services. Based on our engagement with service providers and our stakeholder feedback, the department determined that the original rate model for center-based services was made with the assumptions of more of like a one-to-one therapy type environment. And we found that it didn't cover the needs for children in more center-based programs that were multi-day, multi-hour group settings. And so after review with our consultants, we wanted to implement a rate model that would associate and support that service. So we are asking for an increase of $15 million in order to support this additional rate model. Issue number 40. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Carla Castaneda. with the Department of Developmental Services with my colleague will present 40 and 44. The next one, the equitable and consistent needs assessment, the department is requesting 11.4 million. That is supporting as your table on page 19 shows department resources as well as regional center staff to implement these changes. My colleague will describe those changes in a bit. For the department resources specifically, that is broken out between program staff to support some of those stakeholder engagements workload as well as the information technology support in modernizing the evaluation tool. And then finally regional center staff on a limited term basis to help with that implementation. Hi, good evening. Michi Gates, Department of Developmental Services, here to discuss item 44, equitable and consistent needs assessment. The equitable and consistent needs assessment proposal would improve equity with access to the regional center system and then also equity and identifying the needs of people in the regional center system. It standardizes the way Lanterman eligibility determinations are made at the 21 regional centers and adopts a new way to assess the needs of individuals who are in the regional center system Currently each regional center does eligibility determinations for Lanterman services differently Eligibility consists of two things, identifying the presence of a developmental disability and secondly, identifying whether it is substantially disabling. Both requirements are defined in statute, but it is not defined how a regional center will make those determinations. The result is a great deal of variability between regional centers and how they determine whether or not someone is eligible for services. This has resulted in a great deal of confusion and distrust in the system and how regional centers are coming to these determinations. And as mentioned earlier, we have heard this clearly in the many stakeholder meetings that we have held as we standardize the intake process. It is clear that if we do not address this aspect, this very important aspect of the intake process, that we will be leaving something very much undone and unsatisfactory. It is this difference across the regional centers is also reflected in some of the data. For example, in the percentage of people found diagnosed to be diagnosed with autism across the regional centers. So in the 21 centers, the percentage of individuals diagnosed with autism compared to the total Regional Center caseloads varies from 33 to 63 percent across different centers, and that is a huge amount of variability. People should be able to apply for Regional Center eligibility and have the same experience regardless of which center they have applied to and have the same outcome. So that is the first part of this proposal. The second part addresses equity for individuals who are in the regional center system. This would be to adopt a new tool that would be a better assessment of individuals' needs. Currently regional centers use the client development evaluation report or what is referred to as a CEDAR. It has been around for a long time. It is not a person-centered instrument and it is not a very good assessment of needs. Planning teams do not find it helpful, clinicians, et cetera, across the board people have not found the CDER helpful. So it makes sense to adopt a different tool and to replace this. And there are many tools out there that can do a better job that are person-centered and that would identify needs and the intensity of needs for individuals. This would allow us to better tie those needs to services that a person would receive. And as I think all of you know, equity in the services provided to individuals and concerns about individuals perhaps not receiving all of the services and supports they need has been a concern for some time in our system. So, the use of such a tool, adopting a tool, a new tool that would better assess needs in a person-centered way and that would be done each year with the individual program plan would be a way for planning teams to be supported in making sure that they identify all of the needs. that individuals have, and then determining what services and supports might meet those needs, whether that's through the regional center, through generic resources, or some other source. So both efforts are large, big tasks, but they're certainly worthwhile, as was mentioned earlier. They would be huge improvements to our system and to our efforts to increase equity. And both of these efforts would entail a lot of stakeholder input. We would want this to be a transparent process that takes the input of people in the regional center system, their families, advocacy organizations, providers, and regional centers, of course, because we want to make sure that when we do things like this, we get it right. Just as we've been asked many times with standardizing the intake process, please get it right. That's more important than getting it done quickly. Make sure that you're not going to make things worse or have unintended consequences. So we would plan to have a lot of stakeholder feedback in this process. So those are the proposals, and I'm happy to take any questions. Item number 48. Good evening, Christine Bagley, Department of Developmental Services. Happy to provide an overview of our proposal for the state operated transitional and rehabilitative services. This proposal is seeking to establish time limits on the lengths of stays for individuals are admitted to Canyon Springs and Porterville Developmental Center. The absence of time limits in both of those settings has really led to an over-reliance on Canyon Springs and Porterville as a long-term residential placement option rather than prioritizing transitional and community-based options. And so individuals are remaining in highly restrictive settings way past what is necessary for them to be received the, you know, clinical supports and rehabilitative services they need to safely integrate into the community. So this proposal is really aligning the purpose of Canyon Springs and both Porterville to that programmatic kind of approach. And so just quickly, the proposal would put a max stay at Porterville at 24 months. That is put out to begin July of 2031. And then at Canyon Springs, also a time limit of 24 months and with the option of a 60-day extension. So and then that would begin July of 2027. I mean, I would just note, you know, we're intentionally staggering some of those timelines. So for several reasons, one, to attune to individuals annual court commitment processes and in order to allow the department time to really kind of develop out and transition people out in phases. The last thing I would note which was referenced earlier is this proposal really does tie into item number 47 which is to align our community placement plan and community resource development plan and merge those two, which would allow us to more deeply attune to the urgency, the timing, and prioritization of our development in the community for those transitions out of Canyon Springs and Porterville. Happy to answer any questions. Department of Finance. One more attention to the Department of Finance. Nothing further to add. LAO. Karina Hendren, LAO. We had a few comments on the spending proposals. First, for items 38 and 39, we consider these two proposals to be non-discretionary. That's because the first proposal implements a federal requirement, and the second proposal implements a technical adjustment to rate reform. And to this end, we have no concerns to raise with either of these proposals at this time. For number 40, this proposal, as we understand it, is related to SB 138, which was budget-related legislation enacted in 2023 that codifies several efforts to make processes across regional centers more consistent in order to improve access to services statewide. Our understanding is that what the department is proposing would build upon the requirements in SB 138, and so this proposal does have a discretionary element to it. Because of that, we generally recommend that the legislature apply a high bar for new discretionary spending proposals in light of projected structural deficits. and then moving on to the trailer bill proposals for item number 48 we wanted to note that this proposal does raise significant policy considerations it's a fairly significant change in the long-standing policy and because of this we recommend that the legislature defer taking action at this time and instead direct the administration to reintroduce the trailer bill language as part of the governor's budget next January. This would allow the legislature more time and capacity for sufficient consideration of the policy's potential benefits, implications, and trade-offs, as well as more thorough engagement with stakeholders. And we do want to emphasize this recommendation is without prejudice to the merits of the proposal. So we're not commenting on the merits, just noting the significant policy change that it represents in light of the constricted timeframe at May revise. Questions from committee members? Seeing none, thank you very much. We will move on to Department of Aging, item number 51. Maybe again when you're ready. go ahead and press your button there good evening Mr Chair member and staff I Susan DeMorris the director of the California Department of Aging and I so pleased that tonight our items will be addressed by our brand new chief chief deputy director Nicole Shimasaka who was just appointed by the governor on Friday Oh, muckety muck. OK. Thank you very much. Nicole Shimosaka, Chief Deputy Director of California Department of Aging. The first item that I will present is on the MSSP software and support reduction. This is a technical budget reduction, which is actually very good. It's a savings to the state as a result of the MSSP software and support program being reclassified from a criticality level two to a level one. As such, there no longer needs to be CDT oversight. This is something that could be overseen by the California Health and Human Services. You'll remember that this is a proposal that was approved this year as a result of the access rule to ensure that our MSSP sites are compliant with new access rule requirements for data reporting and case management. So we're creating a statewide system. The project is well on track and on exactly where it should be, and this is simply just a reduction to move that oversight over to CalHHS. Move on to number 52. Nikoshi Masaka again. Thank you. This is an item that is directly involving our intrastate funding formula that allocates all Older Americans Act funding to our 33 area agencies on aging. This has been a project that began with inception of the Master Plan for Aging. It was one of the very first initiatives that was recognized for the state of California to undertake. And over the last 18 months, we have done extensive work with the California Association of Area Agencies on Aging and the AAAs. And in consultation with them, we have reached a really great place, a very future forward thinking formula that was presented as required per Senate Bill 1249. This formula increases the admin base from 150,000 to 250,000 per AAA. We have updated factors for the first time in 30 years, which is not only a part of the Senate Bill 1249, but it's also a requirement of the administration on community living per their feedback to CDA and the governor in the state plan. And for the first time in the state's history, we have a disability factor, which is very notable, and it's on trend with what we're seeing across the nation as well. There is a 21-22 hold harmless that's included, and this new proposed formula aligns proportionably and equitably with where older adults are residing across the state of California. We appreciate how engaged the AAA network and the C4A Association has been in this process. We've conducted at least eight webinars. We've worked in person together. We did surveys. We had a calculator tool to model that's still available online, and we've done more than one draft that we've received feedback and we've updated accordingly. We reached a consensus of having five factors focused on age income minority status disability status and a rural geographic isolation factor as well Public comment just ended May 11th, and we heard from over 250 different interests in that public comment phase. Of that, nine of the 33 AAAs responded, as did C4A. Seven of those AAAs expressed a desire to further refine the interstate funding formula. Two supported it. And then 24 did not offer any feedback. We recognize that this is a change that we have not revisited this since the 90s. But this is why ACL is requesting that we do this now. And this will be in alignment with the other objectives as well of Senate Bill 1249. Notably, 12 of the AAAs will receive increases. 12 would receive decreases, and the formula does account for whether the largest growth areas are across the state, which includes the Sacramento area, followed by parts of Southern California, primarily the Inland Empire, which would see an increase, and the San Joaquin or Central Valley. I have additional very specific information that I'm happy to share, but that is an overview of the work that we've done on the interstate funding formula and where we are at today. Department of Finance. Jennifer Ramirez with the Department of Finance. Nothing further. LAO. Juwan Trotter, LAO. So we're still reviewing this trailblau language, but the administration has reached out and are setting up a meeting to further explain this TBL with us later in the week. So we will reach back out if we have more to share after that. Just a question on item number 52. to tell me about how do you see this as an improvement of the system, and why do you think that there are some advocates who are opposed to this item? Susan DeMorris, Director, California Department of Aging. In terms of an improvement, it has been three decades since we've last visited this formula, and we've seen demographic shifts throughout our state. So notably, the fastest growing areas, as we heard from Nicole, are the Inland Empire, San Joaquin Valley, and far northern California. And so in those areas, we haven't kept pace with the growth. So we will see better resource allocation in those communities that are experiencing growth. The formula using the five factors does account for rural isolation and disability and poverty. And so that's all taken into account for those communities as well. Where we do see concern is the overall sum total of funding, the total statewide allocation is not increasing. And so we are resourcing communities that have been under-resourced. And several of our AAAs will see a decline because either their population has declined or perhaps they don't meet one of the factors. They're highly urban and don't have the rural factor. Got it. After you do a briefing with LAO, I would love to sit down and learn more about it as well. so we can, it seems like we need to do a little bit more. conversations so that we can make sure that we know what we're doing, making sure that we let our advocates know and truly understand what their concerns are, and then we can see where we move forward from there. But I appreciate it. All right. Thank you. Delighted to sit with you and talk further about this. And one other item of note we failed to mention is this takes effect in July of 2029, and And the full rollout is July of 2031. So we're proud of our network to be getting ahead of this and to have the opportunity for advanced planning. Thank you so much. Thank you. Any other questions on these items? Okay. Thank you very much. We'll move on to community services and development, item number 53. And go ahead and just present on 53 through 55. Hi, good evening, Chair, member, and staff. My name is Daphne Hunt. I'm the Chief Deputy Director of the Department of Community Services and Development. Tonight we have three brief items. All of them are administrative in nature and really have to do with streamlining our budgetary processes. The first is we are seeking an increase in the reimbursement authority for the California Earned Income Tax Credit, Cal EITC, Education Outreach Grant Program Administration activities. The Cal EITC program is authorized annually, but total funding can vary with the passage of each budget. This technical adjustment would reduce administrative requirements associated with adjusting the reimbursement authority after the budget is passed by creating a broader standing authority for these reimbursements. Second, our next item requests an increase in our existing general fund loan authority for state operations, increasing it from $3 million to $5 million. dollars. This increase is needed to ensure the loan adequately covers state operation costs, as CSD has seen in recent years, increased delays in the release of appropriated federal funds. And then lastly, this also has to do with our general fund loan authority. CSD is requesting an increase for the reimbursement. So for the general fund loan authority for reimbursement of our local agencies, looking at an increase of $40 million to $305 million. The general fund loan allows for continuity in payments to CSD's local agencies, many of which are nonprofits, unable to float costs while awaiting appropriated funds to be released by the federal government. Approval of this item will help ensure that CSD is able to efficiently reimburse its local agencies for their expenditures in a timely manner when delays in approved federal grant awards or reimbursements occur. Thank you. Department of Finance. Sheila Nott, Department of Finance, nothing further to add. Alejo. Ginny Bella, Legislative Analyst's Office. In reviewing the May revision, we did notice a couple places throughout the human services budgets where there are these requests to increase the level of general fund loan authority. So it's just something we're taking a closer look at we asking some questions around how the new levels were determined how that compares to other departments what would be the mechanisms in place for when those would be used and what the role of the legislature would be So it just something we trying to look at across the different departments that are requesting that increase in general fund loan authority. Of course, having that increased flexibility is helpful, but we want to make sure we understand how it will work. And once you're done with your assessment, I mean, obviously, what is the mechanism in which you then educate us on whatever concerns or updates that your clarifications you may have. Sure. I think if we, if we have concerns, we'll definitely be raising those in these tight timelines. We tend to do that through our, our emails and our messages to you all and to staff, or if we have other hearings, we can bring those up in hearings as well. Thank you very much. Additional questions or comments. Dr. Sharp-Harlins. Thank you. I do appreciate you speaking to the fact because you actually stated one of my questions, two of them, was trying to really identify how the new levels were actually being determined and then what our role would actually be. But I'm also just wondering, because that's a huge jump, $265 million increase. So I'm just wondering how we came about those particular figures, if you don't mind elaborating. Sure, and I may need to lean on my finance colleagues a little bit in this piece, but it really has to do with the way the funds are encumbered. It's very technical. And typically, we would really only need a loan of up to $40 or $50 million. That's pretty typical, and that's why you see that amount before. But because of the fact that the funds are encumbered federally and we actually need them in the general fund, that the movement to the general fund and the allowance there will allow more flexibility and prompt reimbursement of our partners. But I will look to finance to see if there's any clarification there. No, that's absolutely correct. It's a technical adjustment to help with the efficiency of the loan so that they can actually use it as it's intended to be used. Thank you for the point of clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you all very much. We'll move on to item number 56, Department of Rehabilitation. Thank you. you can move one of those chairs away please You may begin when you're ready. Good to see you. Can you press that button? There we go. All right. I thought it was on and it wasn't. All right. Good evening, Chair, members of the committee. Kim Rutledge, Department of Rehabilitation Director. I am also here to ask for loan authority up to 50% of our federal award for the vocational rehabilitation program. The vocational rehabilitation program, as you may be aware, is 80% funded by the federal government. And we are asking for this general fund loan authority this evening specifically because we are experiencing much like our other departments do an experience when the government shuts down when we have a federal government shutdown That means that all of the funding that comes to us from the federal government stops And with the last two shutdowns they have coincided with when our grants are typically released at the end of the federal fiscal year and then after the beginning of the calendar year And so much like our colleagues at CSD, when this federal funding stops because it's such a high percentage of our funds for the department, we're unable to pay our rehabilitation vendors. We're unable to pay tuition, books, and those types of things in time for individuals who are going through the vocational rehabilitation program. And it basically, with the last two government shutdowns, it has almost shut down our own department. So this is just a technical change to our existing language, and it is really going to ensure continuity of services for individuals who are receiving vocational rehabilitation services. And we're open to any additional questions. Department of Finance? Nothing further to add. LAO? Karina Hendren, LAO. Just noting that the comments that my colleague Ms. Bella made on the previous item for the loan authority apply here as well. How do I get me alone? Can I get me? I wish I knew too. Questions from committee. All right. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. HHS, come on. Oh, no, no, no. Child Support Services, number 57. Mm-hmm. And you may begin when you're ready. All right. Good evening, Chair Jackson, members of the committee. My name is Nan Chen, Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Child Support Services. The May revision includes two technical adjustments to the budget. The first is a $410,000 increase to capture increased federal performance incentive funding that we anticipate to receive. The second is a net zero $1.3 million adjustment. It's net zero because we decrease our federal fund authority but increase our child support recovery fund, which captures the federal share of collections that we process each year. And so happy to take any questions. Department of Finance. Kayla, not Department of Finance. Nothing further to add. LAO. Ginny Bella, LAO. No concerns with this proposal. Questions from committee members? Seeing nine, you got off easy, buddy. Thank you. All right. Item number 58, HHS. And you're going to cover items number 58 through 61. Bring us home, baby. Chair and members, my name is Brent Hauser, Deputy Secretary for Program and Fiscal Affairs at the California Health and Human Services Agency. Seeing as I'm the last person before public comment, I will do my best to be brief and answer any questions you may have. I'll cover the four items listed in the agenda, beginning with item number 58. The California Health and Human Services Agency requests $294,000 general fund to be reappropriated to address increases in legal workload associated with HR1. The 2025 Budget Act appropriated general fund one time for these resources However Cal HHS was unable to hire in the current year for the position due to operational constraints specifically with vacancies and onboarding leadership positions And I'll pause there to see if there's any questions. Keep it going, baby. Keep it going. Sounds good. Item 59, this corresponds with item 25 in the Department of Social Services budget. That was a way for presentation, but this is a net zero transfer of dollars from the Department of Social Services to the Office of Technology and Solutions Integration, specifically for the continuation of the state verification hub initiative. It's $831,000 from the California Health and Human Services Automation Fund. Moving to item 60, Cal HHS is seeking time-limited resources to support the responsibilities in the statewide planning and implementation of AB 988, the Miles Hall Lifeline and Suicide Prevention Act. Specifically, Cal HHS is requesting $445,000 in the budget year and $439,027,28 and $28,29 from the State Suicide Behavioral Health Crisis Services Fund to support the following activities. Coordination within Cal HHS departments and other state entities such as Cal OES and the implementation of the five-year 988 plan. Convening the 988 Crisis Policy Advisory Group for Accountability and Community Engagement and Development as Required in Statute Annual Updates on Plan Implementation Progress through 2029. 61. 61. We're all looking at you now. Cal HHS's last agenda item also reflects a technical change of transferring funding associated with the Menopause Public Awareness Campaign and its ancillary expenditures as proposed in the governor's budget from Cal HHS's budget to the California Department of Public Health, given their expertise and experience in implementing statewide public awareness campaigns. And that concludes my very brief remarks and happy to take any questions. Well done, Department of Finance. Shalina Nurali, Department of Finance. Nothing further to add. LAO. Mark Newton, Legislative Analyst Office. We raise no concerns with these proposals. All right. Questions from committees? Okay. Thank you all very much. Now we're going to public comment. One minute each. Public comment. One minute each. I should have said it in the beginning, but you all never listen anyway, so I don't know how much good that would have done. Name and affiliation, please. Thank you, Chair, and to the committee, Monica Kirkland with Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County, representing over 40 organizations that provide health and supportive services to over 90,000 people in Alameda County. So we strongly oppose reinstating the Medi-Cal asset limit. It would cost thousands of older adults and people with disabilities to lose coverage, and this policy would punish low-income Californians and leave just one emergency away from financial ruin. We also strongly oppose changing the eligibility for APS from 60 to age 65. Older adults won't stop being abused or neglected, and this change would put thousands of older adults in harm's way without protection. We oppose the governor's proposal to shift costs to the counties through the COFCP. And we oppose the governor's proposals to eliminate the IHSS residual program and eliminate the IHSS backup provider system. And we strongly oppose the CDA's intra-state funding formula, and it will institute cuts to keep services that are keeping older adults safe and stable in our county, and for the C4A budget request as well for nutrition. Thank you. Thank you very much. If anyone has any feedback in regards to the backup system, IHSS, how do we curve that cost? We're looking for ideas because that's also not sustainable. So we need to make sure that we address that. Name an affiliation, please. Sarah Botches with Children Now and Child Poverty on behalf of the early learning and child care item. Thank you so much for your discussion, your comments. We urge you to reject the proposal of the AP CCTR slot reductions. of which 69% of those families are on AP vouchers, and they're enrolled in family, friend, and neighbor or FCC care. They're predominantly Latino and African-American families. These are the same parents and guardians that work in the care industry and on nontraditional hours. These are the very same families facing the trifecta of impacts from the harshest of federal actions that are minimizing and destabilizing our family support systems through stricter and unrealistic expectations during these difficult economic times. Thank you. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Gabriela Chavez with UDW. In a strong opposition to the governor's proposed IHHS cuts presented at governor's budget and also in a strong opposition to the reductions to the adult protective services and the restatement of the medical asset tests that will balance the budget on the back of the older adults and people with disabilities. Reinstating the asset test punishes savings, it forces low-income individuals to spend down modest savings just to qualify for care and trap them in a cycle of poverty. We should not be making budget decisions that penalize works, savings, and independence. We're putting California's most vulnerable residents at greater risk. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of Vera Institute of Justice and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, respectfully requesting that the subcommittee maintain the $75 million annual allocation for California's immigration legal services programs and recommend increasing funding for deportation services by an additional $50 million. The investments will ensure that due process and other basic constitutional rights are protected. Thank you. Thank you very much. Name and affiliation, please. Good evening. My name is Dan Okenfuss. I'm with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers. We represent 24 independent living centers across the state serving consumers with disabilities. And we are here to thank the legislature and hopefully continue protecting our state's progress towards health care and long-term service and supports for all by continuing to fund Medi-Cal. Specifically, we oppose the governor's proposal to propose IHSS cuts in state budget. Shifting costs to the counties is a cut to IHSS and counties do not have the extra funding to cover this. And also we urge you to continue protecting Medi-Cal for our undocumented immigrants in the state budget. We should not further harm immigrants with disabilities by cutting their Medi and we support providing state funded Medi to refugees and asylees who will lose coverage to to H 1 Thank you very much Thank you very much Name and affiliation please You all are doing so well. Let's keep it up. Let's all wait to see who's the first one to screw this up. I'll keep it short. Good afternoon, Alexa Chavez. Commenting on behalf of Child Care Providers United, which, as you know, is a partnership between SCIU and UDW, and we represent over 70,000 providers. Here to comment that the budget fails to include the money needed to move to a prospective pay system for providers. The federal government's recent rule changes are rolling back standards, but we don't want to see California participate in a race to the bottom. In stating a prospective pay model would require a one-time investment in administrative costs, but would make tremendous progress in stabilizing child care providers and the care that they provide for working parents. In a year with billions of unanticipated one-time money, the time is now to complete this shift. Finally, we look forward to the implementation of our Joint Labor Management Committee recommendations to move us forward to rates based on the true cost of care. California's child care providers are essential infrastructure for working families and our economy, and we urge you to protect child care investments in the final budget. Thanks. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Good evening, Chair, member, and staff. My name is Andrew Avila of Early Edge California. We want to respectfully raise our concerns with the proposal to reduce COLA for child care and state preschool, for the proposal to abandon prospective pay for providers, and the lack of funding for the promised spaces that our families so desperately need. We urge you to help shape a budget that will support providers and families and look forward to a meaningful budget that will move us forward with rate reform and the alternative methodology. Thank you. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Kim Rothschild, California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS. We appreciate the rejection of the IHSS cuts. We owe, Nicole, a meeting on the backup provider program, information that you have requested. We also are concerned about the asset limit rolling back to $2,000, $3,000 per couple, and ask that you also consider rejecting that proposal. Have a good evening. Thank you. Thank you very much. Name and affiliation, please. Good evening, Chair members. Andrew Shane on behalf of CWDA. I'm going to focus on eligibility, but we appreciate the comments about IHSS and APS. Dr. Sharp-Collins, thank you for your leadership on this issue. Thank you, Chair, for calling out the fact that it's a net $89 million cut in the revise when all things are totaled. And to put that in a worker perspective, we need to hire 400 new workers. This puts us 450 workers' jobs at risk and in total 717 short of what's needed. So now is not the time for formulas. If so, the formula for California is clear. We are going to have 500,000 people or more lose their food benefits and $2 to $3 billion in federal food assistance leave this state. We've seen from Massachusetts, it's not just those who are APODs, but children and families because workers are overwhelmed and they cannot keep up with the volume. So we have one chance to get this right because this starts in less than two weeks. We need the legislature to augment the $30 million with the $73 million in the budget year and $58 million ongoing to hire the staff needed for this new normal. We need to hold the base eligibility funding at governor's budget levels and reject the $119 million cut and to reject the county sheriff cost for the state administrative expense target as counties were never informed and could have never possibly planned for this. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Name and affiliation, please. Hi, Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties. Unfortunately the May revision falls short of providing the resources that counties need to provide services to vulnerable residents on behalf of the state and protect our safety net from crumbling For the purposes of this subcommittee you know it across the full spectrum of HHS but CalFresh particularly thank you to the chair for so clearly making the case for why counties need more funding to prevent hunger in our communities And we strongly support the overall increase of $103 million for CalFresh eligibility funding as part of our broad H.R.1 budget request. The other huge concern is that the May revision compounds the negative devastating impacts of HR1 by shifting further costs to counties and cutting additional safety net services. So we continue to strongly oppose IHS cost shift, which undermines the existing fiscal structure and would force other cuts to HHS services. Thank you for indication of rejecting that. And then we're also strongly opposed to the APS expansion reversion as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Name and affiliation, please. Good evening, Chair, Assemblymember, and staff. Keely O'Brien with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, also here on behalf of End Child Poverty in California. The May revise fails to meet the scale of the hunger crisis that we're currently facing. By failing to invest in state-funded benefits, this budget proposal accepts hunger as a new reality for more than half a million Californians, including 100,000 children. We urge the Assembly to expand on the investments made in the May revision to meet the scale of the crisis we're facing. Compared to the May revision, we need significantly more funding to meet the county needs, as Andrew expressed. We need more funding for the CalFood program to meet the needs of our food banks. And we need the assembly to continue to push for the critical investments that we're missing from the May revision, including fully funding CalFresh outreach and application assistance, and fully funding state food benefits through CFAP Plus for people losing CalFresh, especially prioritizing the urgent $1.8 million investment in automation. We're very grateful for the strong trailer bill language that this committee has shared, and we'll continue to support that. And we thank Chair Jackson, Assemblymember Calderon, Assemblymember Rodriguez, Assemblymember Aarons, and staff for being champions in this fight. Thank you. All right. You are pushing it. Oh, boy. Good evening. Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, following up on the remainder of our priorities. First, I want to thank Assemblymember Ahrens and the chair for their supportive comments about the need for child care slots, which are critical for families. And we must fulfill the promise of additional slots. We are also concerned about the reduced COLA for DSS-administered child care programs. Secondly, we are in strong opposition to the cuts in IHSS, especially the drastic reduction to the asset test limit, which will force people to impoverish themselves to receive critically needed services or lose those services altogether. We also oppose the elimination of the state share of IHSS growth and backup provider system. On APS, we are opposed to the clawback funding that was adopted previously, including reverting eligibility for the program back to 65 years from 60. On immigration, we are grateful for the one-time funding of $20 million to immigrant legal services, but it does not fulfill the need. With increased immigration enforcement from the federal government, $50 million is needed for deportation defense. Lastly, we are thankful for the CalWORKs COLA and for investment in that program. Thank you. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Christine Smith, Health Access California. We are also opposed to reinstating a $2,000 asset limit for older adults and people with disabilities, which will result in over 60,000 people losing Medi-Cal. Reinstating the cruel asset limit means that people will be forced into deep poverty or risk losing essential health and long-term care coverage. No other group in Medi is subject to an asset limit The budget should not be balanced on the back of older adults and people with disabilities Thank you Thank you Name and affiliation please Good evening Vanessa Flores on behalf of Alameda County Regarding CalFresh we want to thank you for highlighting the net cost or the net cut of $89 million general fund that would leave counties short of at least 717 eligibility workers instead of enabling counties to staff up. We urge the legislature to do three things. The first is to augment the proposed $30 million with $73 million to achieve the CWDA-requested $103 million in the budget year and $58 million ongoing to hire the needed 400-plus eligibility workers. Second, hold counties harmless from the premature $119 cut. And third, reject any county share of costs for state administration expense overspending as counties were never informed of the target. On IHS, we continue to oppose all proposed cuts, including the hours cost shift that will exacerbate HR1's harms to counties and communities. And on Adult Protective Services, we urge the legislature to reject the reversion and funding reduction and note how critical the funding is for counties to serve not just adults ages 60 to 64, but the entire program. And I'm also here on behalf of Golden State Opportunity. We want to express support for increased reimbursement authority for the CalIITC and the $500 million increase in outreach and education. Thank you. Good evening. Amy Westling, Association of Regional Center Agencies, representing California's 21 regional centers. First and foremost, we appreciate the administration's thoughtful approach to the developmental services budget and stand ready to work alongside the Department of Developmental Services to boost federal reimbursements, which is the only way our budget hangs together. Second, we are in strong opposition to the asset limit reduction to $2,000 for an individual, $3,000 for a couple, in large part because it will cause significant cost shifts to regional centers, because people with intellectual and developmental disabilities will look to us to backfill those services. And we will backfill those services with services that cost more and at that point have no federal reimbursement. So it could actually triple the cost of those services for those same individuals. So not only is it a short-sighted proposal, but it also doesn't make a lot of fiscal sense. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chair and Member. I'm Anielia Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center and also here on behalf of End Child Poverty in California. We thank the governor for maintaining the planned automation for the expansion of the California Food Assistance Program for older adults, which is set to begin October 2027. We continue to urge the legislature to invest in CFAP Plus to provide food benefits to immigrants who have lost access to CalFresh since April 1st. Making one-time investments to modernize CFAP today will allow us to address these exclusions in the long term. Additionally, we thank the governor for including a one-time increase of $20 million for immigration legal services in the May revise. However, as our families and immigrant communities continue to face unprecedented attacks by the Trump administration, we urge the Assembly to match the state Senate's $50 million proposal for depredation defense services. Thank you, Chair, for your leadership, and we look forward to continuing to work together on these important issues. Thank you. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Good evening. Tuito with the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center. We represent the largest group of refugees ever resettled in the U.S. Four in ten Southeast Asian Americans have public health care coverage in California. And the Southeast Asian Americans reported median household incomes between $19,000 and $20,000 per capita, which is well below the California. medium of 36,000. We oppose the governor's proposal to further cut health care access for immigrants, including older immigrants. The proposals to freeze enrollment, impose monthly premiums, and eliminate dental coverage will deprive older Californians of the care they need now and in the future. These proposals come at the heels of cut to care for immigrants that were part of last year's state budget and the H.R. 1, further deepening the affordability crisis, impacting older adults in immigrant communities were already targeted by federal policies. And so we asked the legislator to reject these proposals that seek out to balance the California's budget at the expense of its most vulnerable, highest-needs residents. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Good evening. Karina Ligo with the Child Care Law Center. Are Parent vs. California aligned with our comments? Thank you, Chairperson Jackson, for rejecting the cuts to child care. You're right. We cannot go back. Child care is vital to the social fabric of our society and must be prioritized in our state budget. As Assemblymember Ahrens noted, it's necessary infrastructure. That's why we urge the Assembly to support the Senate Democrats by funding 44,000 new child care spaces and ensure that they begin starting July 1, 2026. reject any cuts to child care spaces, reject the reduction in the child care COLA, and adopt and implement the single rate structure based on the true cost of nurturing child care. We trust that the Assembly will work with the Senate and administration to ensure all communities have affordable child care that they need, which in turn allows all Californians to thrive. We applaud the efforts to protect life-serving programs through new revenue solutions, and we support CDSS's CalWORK's trailer bill language to harmonize child care eligibility and add data sharing elements between agencies to support continuity of care for families. Thank you and good night. Thank you. Name and affiliation. Good evening. Ronald Coleman here on behalf of Authentic Advocacy, here on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, CHURLA. Unfortunately, continuing the e-saving program under DSS's Refugee Program Bureau was not in the governor's budget. The Enhanced Services for Asylees and Vulnerable Non-Citizens Program provides resettlement case management for up to 90 days for asylum seekers and other humanitarian immigrants who would otherwise not receive any state or federal support. The program provides up to 90 days of culturally competent and linguistically appropriate services to make sure that people get information on accessing jobs, housing, banking access, healthcare navigation, access to public benefits for which they may be eligible, and over 3,700 individuals in California have been helped by these services, half of which who are asylees, the other half who are victims of human trafficking and or survivors of violent crime. On food benefits, we want you to expand CFAP, the California Food Assistance Program, to ensure that we can include anybody who was kicked off of the CalFresh rolls due to changes related to H.R. 1. And we also want to make sure there's an investment in automation for $1.8 million. Thank you. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Good evening. Monica Madrid, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Chirla, we urge the Assembly to match the Senate's proposal for a $50 million increase for immigration legal services and specifically increasing funding for deportation defense. California families are living in fear as the federal administration estimates and calates mass deportation policies and expand immigration enforcement operations across the country at a time when the federal government is investing billion in detention and deportation California must continue to lead by protecting due process and ensuring families have access to legal representation We appreciate the governor including a one million increase in the May revise but the need on the ground far exceeds the current funding levels. Immigration and legal service providers across California are overwhelmed. Without additional investment, thousands of vulnerable children, workers, asylum seekers, and long-term community members could be left without representation while facing deportation. And these services do more than we respectfully urge the committee to support the Senate's $50 million proposal for deportation, defense and immigration legal services. Thank you. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the urban counties of California, the rural county representatives of California and the counties of Santa Clara, Ventura, Riverside, Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara. We really appreciate the conversation that you've had tonight about the inadequacy of the CalFresh eligibility funding. We would align ourselves with CWDA's comments and think in particular Assemblymember Sharp Collins and you, Chair Jackson, for your support and leadership on this issue. On IHSS, we continue to propose to oppose all the IHSS proposed cuts. Thank you for your recommendations. And then finally, on behalf of the urban counties and the rural counties, thank you for your comments about restoring the adult protective services cuts and agree that funding is a critical component to combating senior homelessness. Thank you. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Good evening, committee chair and member. Yereli Magallon with Political Solutions on behalf of the County of San Mateo. My comments today fall under the CalFresh and Food Programs agenda item. The county eligibility workforce plays an essential role in helping individuals and families obtain and retain Medi-Cal coverage and CalFresh benefits Counties face a substantial increase in workload as a result of the new Medi-Cal redeterminations and reinstated and expanded CalFresh work requirements The proposed budget includes a net cut of $89 million in general funds that would leave counties short of at least 717 eligibility workers We urge the legislature to augment the proposed $30 million with $73 million to achieve CWDA's ask of $103 million in this budget year and $58 million in ongoing funds to hire these needed eligibility workers. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Good evening. Kevin Buffalino, Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services. We appreciate the governor's inclusion of $38 million in the budget for Cal Food Program. But with California's food banks feeding more people than ever before and the impacts of HR1, that will not be enough to continue to meet demand. I respectfully request our budget request of $50 million for ongoing funding and $60 million one-time funding. Also here on behalf of California Association of Food Bankers, sorry, diaper banks, we are grateful for the governor's recognition of diaper need here in California. But we already have a proven program, state-funded program for diaper banks that's provided over 200 million diapers over the past five years. So we have a $16.5 million budget request for the California Association of Diaper Banks. Thank you. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Thank you, Chair and members. Kathy Mossberg on behalf of a couple of clients. First, the Area Agencies on Aging, C4A. We want to stress our opposition to CDA's trailer bill language on the interstate funding formula. Appreciate the discussion tonight. We stand here willing and committed to work with the chair and the department on this. But as you heard here today, you've got 12 winners and 12 losers. This is not a way to provide funding across the state for California's senior population, which we only know is growing and those with disabilities So we really encourage you to take a better a closer look at this and happy to work with you on that We respectfully urge you to to reject the proposal And then on adult productive services, um, proposes, we, um, sorry, oppose the reductions in that and IHSS. And then, um, on behalf of Nourish California, want to thank you for your leadership on CFAP plus and appreciate, want to continue to work with you on that. Appreciate the administration continuing the timeline for those 55 and over in CFAP and look forward to that being implemented in 2027. But really think now is the time for the reasons stated earlier. It's cost effective to do all the IT now. Makes total sense. So I want to work with you on that moving forward as well as the administration. Thank you. For the Department of Aging, you said there's 12 winners and 12 losers. Explain how the losers are losers. Yeah. So there really is just a finite amount of funding. so there's no additional dollar. So basically, if you're going to give more money to one area, another area has to have less. And so we appreciate the new five priorities in 1249 and the proposal from 2024. We honestly did not expect this proposal to come forward at this time. We expected this to be a next-year issue, so the timeline has surprised us. But that's how there's losers. It's like a balloon. You can only put so much here and so much there when you squeeze a finite amount of dollar. I think we've been consistently over the years been trying to ask for additional funding, and we just haven't seen that happen. You don't believe that the population shifts are justifiable? We think that some of that is justifiable for certain. I think, though, you still have those in need in those urban areas. Because there is a higher level of interest to fund those in rural areas, totally agree with that, you're losing out on funding those in urban areas. So places like Los Angeles are going to be potentially a loser. We have to and we've also seen the funding formula a couple times and it's changed each time First, we saw some losers in rural then they then they came back and now we see winners in rural areas And we think that's appropriate for all the points made, but we don't think you should see losers They're still serving far less people than they should serve So we think we need to probably be talking about additional resources here probably to get everyone to even 14 million dollars I'm not suggesting that money comes easy these days, but to get – if you were able to put in $14 million additional dollars, you could kind of even it out for everyone, at least for now. And again – sorry, I don't mean to – Just reach out for further conversation. I mean obviously we want to get this right. Yeah, appreciate it. But we just need – I just need to have more information. Totally appreciate that. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Josh Gogger on behalf of the California Association of Diaper Banks urging support for $16.5 million to continue the state's diaper bank program. As safety net supports are scaled back under H.R. 1, more families are facing heightened diaper insecurity, increasing reliance on diaper banks to help families remain stable as federal assistance declines. Diapers are a critical basic need but are not covered by SNAP. When food insecurity rises, diaper need rises simultaneously. Families are forced into impossible tradeoffs, food, rent, utilities, or diapers. This can exacerbate childcare barriers and lead to miswork as well. Unfortunately, state funding for California's diaper banks is again set to expire at the end of this fiscal year with the governor's fiscal plan neglecting to extend the program. Luckily, the legislature has stepped up two years in a row to extend the program through the leadership of this subcommittee and others. This year, Assemblymember Ortega and 40 Assembly colleagues have requested $16.5 million to continue the successful program that has distributed over 200 million diapers. Thank you very much for your continued support. Name an affiliation please Jeff Neal representing the counties of Contra Costa YOLO and Lake I want to align myself with the comments of CWDA about encouraging more funding for eligibility workers You know, it takes three months to train an eligibility worker before they can even begin having a client caseload, and then months after that with a reduced caseload and continued training to do the hard work that they do. I also want to align my comments with my colleague representing RCRC and UCC to reject the cuts and cost shifts to the IHSS program to counties. Thank you. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Good evening. John Scoglin with the County of Los Angeles. We appreciate the subcommittee's focus on the county-administered safety net programs and want to briefly raise CalFresh, IHSS, and APS. APS. On CalFresh, we appreciate the subcommittee highlighting the $89 million general fund net cut, which would leave counties short at least 717 eligibility workers. We urge the legislature to augment the proposed $30 million by $73 million, hold counties harmless from the premature $190 million cut, and reject any new county share of cost for state administrative overspending. On IHSS, we oppose all proposed cuts, including the hour cost shift. And on APS, we urge rejection of the proposed revision and funding reduction. Thank you very much. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Good evening. Darby Kernan on behalf of Leading Age California and In Child Poverty California. We oppose all IHSS proposed cuts, including the hours cost shift. That will exacerbate HR1's harms to our communities. In addition, we oppose the reinstatement of the Medi-Cal asset limit for older adults and people with disabilities. Thank you. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Good evening, Chair and members. Mauricio Medina, Jacobs & Cushman, San Diego Food Bank, speaking in support of $110 million for CalFood and $16.5 million to the California Diaper Bank Network. Thank you. Thank you. That's what I'm talking about. Did y'all take notes? Good evening, Chair and members. My name is Malia Carey. I am here speaking on behalf of the Orange County Hunger Alliance. It is a coalition of eight anti-hunger organizations in our county, including Orange County's two food banks. I'm here to speak to the need of the CalFood program as a lifeline for food banks in our state. Our county's two food banks have seen a steady increase in food need in our community, and the food need is only expected to increase due to the snap cuts in H.R. 1. While we are grateful for the governor's proposed $38 million for CalFood, but to meet the increased demand, we continue to request a total of $60 million ongoing and $50 million in one-time funding, which is an additional $72 million above the May revise. I highlight that without this funding, our food banks will not be able to meet the food need in our Orange County community. Thank you. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Claudia Keller, I'm the chief executive officer of Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County. What she said. But for the very reason that the state's food banks have been standing in the breach of so many crises, whether it's a government shutdown, a pandemic, or whatever is going to happen with H.R.1, we are grateful for $38 million. Please don't get us wrong. But it is simply not enough to feed those that will come to our doors in the coming year because of cuts to CalFresh, the high cost of living, the high cost of food. Food banks are serving more people than ever before with dwindling resources all around. We are the safety net to the safety net. We need someone to back us up. Thank you. Thank you. Name an affiliate. please. You're going to catch a theme. I'm Catherine Eden with Second Harvest of Silicon Valley, and our organization provides free food assistance to one in six residents across Santa Clara County and San Mateo counties. And we fully anticipate even more of our neighbors will be coming to us for food assistance in the months to come due to the harmful provisions in HR1, which really decimate safety net programs. So for this reason, we're asking for your support today by requesting $60 million in ongoing CalFood funding and $50 million in one-time funding $14 million to reserve the CalFresh Outreach Network and the expansion of California Food Assistance Program, or CFAP, to include all Californians cut off by CalFresh due to HR1. Thank you very much. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Good evening, Chair and Member. Jeanette Carpenter, on behalf of Child Action, we do appreciate the governor's proposal to protect child care investments. However, we do take issue with the, well, for the increase in the admin rate for the AP program from 17.5 to 19 percent. We appreciate the increase, but it still doesn't fully reflect the operational demands and needs that we face, you know, serving our children and families in Sacramento County. and also missing noted from other child care advocates is the fact that we don't have the SRS or implementation of the alternative methodology. I'm also here on behalf of TFC, and they represent 68 AP programs throughout the state. They also have an issue with Issue 1 and Issue 2. So thank you so much and have a good night. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Good evening. I'm Lynn Shabard with California Services Disability. Sorry, it's been a long day. California Disability Services Association. We want to thank the administration and the legislature for their continued commitment to upholding the promise of the Lanterman Act and ensuring that individuals with IDD have access to the community-based services and supports that they are entitled to receive. Particularly in difficult fiscal climate, we deeply appreciate the prioritization of these essential services and the recognition that any additional funding pressures could significantly undermine the progress that this legislature has made in the last few years. I also want to highlight that CDSA will be submitting a formal May revision response in the coming days, including feedback and recommendations related to the new developmental services trailer bill. We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the department and the legislature over the next few weeks to help inform final language that's thoughtful and responsive to the needs of individuals with IDDs, their family, and the service providers that support them. Thank you so much, and have a good evening. May revise feedback as soon as possible. All right now. Good evening, Rachel Blucher, on behalf of the County of San Diego. I want to really thank you for the time and attention placed at this hearing on these very important issues. So we, in the interest of time, I'm going to align my comments with CWDA, ECC, CSAC, augmentation, especially for CalFresh benefits eligibility. Thank you. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Good evening, Chair Jackson and Member Sharp Collins. Jonathan Munoz here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Coalition. The coalition is concerned that the ECE professionals did, and those providing child care or preschool services, have not received a cost of living adjustment. that truly reflects the true cost of living. While LEAs received a full 287 COLA, EEC professionals did not. This investment will help cover rising costs of electricity diapers baby formula books educational supplies We strongly urge the legislature and the governor to fully fund the COLA for 2627 at 2 adopt a sentence proposal to fund an additional 44,000 ECE spaces, and finally to adopt an alternative rate methodology that fairly pays providers. Thank you so much. Thank you. Name an affiliation, please. Good evening. Yasmeen Pellet with Justice and Aging. We are strongly opposed to lowering the asset limit to $2,000. Older adults and people with disabilities are the only group subject to an asset limit in Medi-Cal. Older adults already have the highest poverty rate of any age group in the state, and this proposal will make it worse and force more older adults and people with disabilities to live in deep poverty in order to access critical health care services. This proposal inflicts unnecessary harm and will result in people losing their Medi-Cal and IHSS. We are also opposed to the proposal to raise the eligibility for APS from 60 to 65, and we remain opposed to the January budget proposals to cut IHSS. Thank you. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Good evening. Josh Wright with the California Association of Food Banks. We are grateful for the governor's proposed $38 million for CalFood in the May revise, but we continue to ask for $72 million above the May revise to meet the increased need, including $60 million of that is ongoing. and then aligning my comments on the expansion of CFAP and our gratefulness to you for the committee for the trailer bill language and that you preserve the CalFresh Outreach Network. Thank you. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Good evening, Chair and members. Chris Carter with the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank. Food insecurity in Los Angeles County is 24%, and the LA Food Bank is feeding 1.1 million people per month. We are grateful to the governor for proposing $38 million for CalFood in the state budget. However, to meet the increased demand for food assistance caused by H.R. 1, we are requesting $60 million ongoing and $50 million one-time funding for CalFood. We also request $16.5 million for the state's diaper bank program and support for the expansion of CFAP to include all Californians impacted by H.R. 1. We thank you for supporting Californians served by the state's food bank network. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please. Good evening, Chair Jackson, Assemblymember Sharp Collins. Thank you for holding this hearing today. We appreciate that the governor and legislature are advancing proposals that will help unrig California by closing corporate tax loopholes and creating new revenue. Family child care providers are deeply concerned that in the May revision, it leaves major child care promises unfilled. First, the governor's proposal fails to ensure providers earn the true cost of care and slashes a COLA proposed in the January budget. Second, the May revision does not include funding for the 44,000 child care slots previously promised. Families are still waiting for affordable care and the providers are ready to serve them. We urge the legislature to fully fund those slots as flexible vouchers to expand access to affordable care. Lastly, I want to thank you, Chair Jackson, for your leadership in supporting fire victims. SEIU Local 99 and our providers are appreciative that the January budget included $11 billion to support families and communities impacted by the devastating wildfires. We appreciate the dialogue and look forward to continued conversations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Who are you? Okay, thank you. I want to also first, I would be remiss to say that I want to thank CDSS for recognizing the need for those affected by the fires and automatically including it in the January budget and continuing that So I want make sure that that being said as well Thank you Andrew Mendoza on behalf of the Alzheimer Association Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. We really do appreciate your leadership and having someone with your unique perspective in this position. On the Medi-Cal asset test, we are concerned that reinstating it will impose toxic stress on people that are living with dementia and their partners by having to weigh whether or not they'll spend down their finances or maintain their coverage. And then on the IHSS program, we do believe that that will, the cuts to that program will complicate the care for people that are living with dementia that want to age in place, which is by and large their preference, but it will also exacerbate the caregiver burden by decreasing a viable option for many people to receive compensation for what they would be doing anyways. And then lastly, we are concerned with APS, reducing the eligibility for HomeSafe. And again, we really appreciate your leadership and thank you so much for your time. Thank you very much. Name an affiliation, please. Good evening. Michael Henning, California Alliance of Child and Family Services. We respectfully urge support for our sponsored $30 million for foster family agency stabilization. FFA support approximately one in five foster youth statewide, including many children with higher acuity, behavioral health, and complex care needs, continued provider losses caused by the ongoing liability insurance crisis, threatened placement stability, and critical family-based care capacity. We support the May revisions proposed $18.4 million one-time augmentation for the Title IV E stipend project, which serves as a critical workforce pipeline for California's child welfare system during a time of significant staffing shortages. We also support the proposed $20 million one-time investment for immigration legal services to help stabilize vulnerable children and families facing heightened fear, trauma, and instability. Thank you very much. Thank you. Name and affiliation, please.

Thank you. Name and affiliation, please.

Thank you. Name and affiliation, please.

I am the president and CEO of FoodShare Ventura County. And on behalf of the 250,000 people that we are serving on an annual basis, they're asking for two things, food and diapers. So I urge you to support the $110 million for CalFood and the $16.5 million for the diaper banks. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez. I'm just glad you're not last for a change. No, I actually asked him if I could go in front of him. You're not just waiting in the hallway thinking we're done and you just come in at the last minute. Well, a lot of the child care people were putting elbows and everything, but I'm still here in front. I'm just saying. Hey, those child care people, I know. But good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez representing the Central American Resource Center, Carissa, and echoing all the comments of my colleagues on immigration legal services. And we'll just also uplift Mr. Hart's proposal for the CHIRP program that we're very supportive of. And lastly, the Supreme Court will be hearing a TPS ruling, which would impact a lot of Central Americans, Haitians, folks from Sudan, that would just eliminate their—possibly eliminate their legal status. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Member Sharp-Collins, Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs. I have two on behalf first on behalf of full well We strongly support assemblymember Lee's budget request for a hundred million for the cow fresh fruit and vegetable EBT program The program will be turned off effectively June 30th at a 5 million a month burn rate This program will help families reduce hunger Improve health and increase revenue for Californian farmers. Thank you for your consideration Number two, on behalf of Meals on Wheels California, in strong support of Assemblymember Wilson's request for $62.31 million in ongoing funds for the Older Californian Act, we commend the legislature and this committee's commitment to addressing food insecurities. We cannot forget about our senior population. Home-delivered meals keep older Californians healthy, independent, and out of costly institutional care. Thank you for your consideration.

Good evening. Hamid Yazdan on behalf of Immigrant Defense Advocates. I want to express appreciation for the $20 million investment in immigration legal services, but also want to urgently request the continuation of two proven programs and the funding of one critical initiative. The first is the continuation of CHERT, an unaccompanied minor protection program that we very much need in our state. The second is the continuation of the California Immigrant Justice Fellowship Project, a capacity-building project that's been proven to be successful in getting legal resources to regions like the Central Valley and the Central Coast. And then lastly, to fund the Immigration Council Access Pilot Program, a program that would provide unaccompanied or, excuse me, unrepresented families access to counsel when their day at court arrives. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Evening. It's evening now. Chair Dr. Jackson and members, I'm Evan Fern with Disability Rights California. We want to thank you for your leadership in pushing back against all of the IHSS cuts that are still present after the May revise. IHSS recipients deserve access to backup providers and the residual program. Counties will struggle to afford the cost shift. The new Medi-Cal asset limit for people with disabilities and seniors is an inhumane and punitive attack on our most vulnerable. These are communities that rely on this critical health care to survive. The limit isn't even close enough to cover unplanned expenses like car repairs, home repairs or a hospitalization. It forces people to live in extreme poverty. Of this 22,000 people who will be kicked off of Medi-Cal in the next two years, 18,800 of them will be people who lose access to IHSS. It's dangerous for people to lose access to this care, and it makes it harder and sometimes impossible for people to stay in their home. As Assemblymember Aaron's pointed out, IHSS is also a huge cost saver to the state. These IHSS cuts hurt people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, too. Although on paper, regional centers are supposed to step in and cover any gaps in needs as the payer of last resort, it's not that easy in real life. Too often, regional centers still leave clients with significant gaps in care. Or they force clients with disabilities to jump through hoop after hoop just to get care, regardless of whether IHSS is actually available to them or not. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair, members, and staff. George Cruz on behalf of the California Behavioral Health Association. CBHA opposes the proposal to reinstate the Medi-Cal access test limit. This will help older adults and people with disabilities who rely on home and community-based care to stay stable and avoid higher-cost institutional settings. We are also concerned with the reductions tied to IHSS and adult protective services. CBHA supports investments for immigration legal services as these types of investments improve stability for families and reduce trauma that directly impact their mental health outcomes Finally we support the investments for statewide public awareness campaign on perimenopause and menopause public education and early intervention improves health outcomes and reduce stigma around behavioral and physical health that often go untreated Thank you and have a good night.

you know. Good evening, Chair and Members. Jared Call with California Association of Food Banks. Yes, we're rolling deep today. I'll be quick. I just want to thank you and the committee for being anti-hunger champions. The additional funding that you provided last year was crucial in helping us get through the November snap delay. Just urging you to fully fund CalFood, preserve the CalFresh Outreach Network, and continue your leadership to expand access to CFAP. Thank you. Thank you very