GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. OH, YOU
DON'T HAVE TO RESPOND. IT'S
TOTALLY OKAY. NO PRESSURE. A
LITTLE FUN, FUN STORY. I,
PARTICIPATED IN A POKER
TOURNAMENT LAST NIGHT, AND I
CLEANED HOUSE. I WON, AND THEN I
THOUGHT, HOW MANY POKER
TOURNAMENTS DO I NEED TO BE IN
TO FUND THESE PROGRAMS? WE'RE
GOING TO TALK ABOUT TODAY
BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO DO
EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN TO
PROTECT THE PROGRAMS WE'RE GOING
TO BE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. LIKE,
THESE ARE JUST ONE OF OUR MOST,
MOST VULNERABLE. IT'S HARD TO
RANK EVERYTHING UNDER SUB THREE
OF MOST, MOST RIGHT. I FEEL LIKE
I JUST NEED TO ADD MOST TO THE
FIFTH POWER OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT, BECAUSE THESE ARE JUST
SUCH IMPACTFUL PROGRAMS AND WE
SEE THE DATA, HOW MUCH IT HELPS
GETS PEOPLE BACK ON THEIR FEET
AND, IT'S I GET IT TOUGH BUDGET
YEAR. AND I THINK THE ONE
QUESTION THAT A LOT OF MY
COLLEAGUES AND I ARE ASKING IS,
HOW ARE WE DETERMINING WHAT TO
CUT, WHAT TO DELAY, AND WHAT TO,
PRESERVE AND PROTECT AND FURTHER
INVEST IN? I KNOW WE HAVEN'T
GOTTEN AN ANSWER YET. MAYBE THIS
IS THE TIME. THIS IS THE
HEARING. WE'LL GET AN ACTUAL
ANSWER VERSUS OH, IT'S JUST
BECAUSE IT'S A BAD BUDGET. BUT,
NOT LOOKING FORWARD TO BUT
LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS
CONVERSATION BECAUSE THESE ARE
JUST VERY HOT TOPICS. SO TO THAT
RANT OVER, WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN
AND TALK ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT
DEPARTMENTS SO THAT WE HAVE
DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT
SERVICES. AND THEN WE'RE GOING
TO DO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES. WE HAVE AS ALWAYS A
COUPLE OF PANELS TO TALK ABOUT
THESE ISSUES, DUE TO THAT WE'RE
GOING TO DO PUBLIC COMMENT THREE
DIFFERENT TIMES TODAY. WE'RE
GOING TO DO PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER
THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, OF SUPPORT
SERVICES ISSUE ONE AND TWO. THEN
WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO ISSUE
ONE THROUGH FOUR UNDER SOCIAL
SERVICES, AND THEN DO PUBLIC
COMMENT FOR THAT. AND THEN
ISSUES FIVE THROUGH 14 ARE AND
15 ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND THEN WE'LL DO PUBLIC COMMENT
AFTER THAT. GREAT TO THAT. I'D
LIKE TO BEGIN WITH OUR FIRST
APARTMENT CHILD SUPPORT
SERVICES. AND WE CAN HAVE THE
DEPARTMENT COME ON UP PLEASE, TO
KICK US OFF WITH OUR OVERVIEW.
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, LEO
JOINED THE PARTY. IF YOU COULD
STATE YOUR NAME AND TITLE AND
YOU BEGIN WITH ANSWERING THE
QUESTIONS IN THE AGENDA. GOOD
MORNING. DAVID KILGORE, DIRECTOR
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD
SUPPORT SERVICES. YOU WANT AN
OVERVIEW OF CHILD SUPPORT OR
JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO QUESTIONS
FOR THE FIRST QUESTION ON THE
CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS PASS
THROUGH FOR FEDERALLY ASSISTED
CALWORKS FAMILIES. IS THE
DEPARTMENT ON TRACK FOR
IMPLEMENTING? WE DO HAVE THAT
TECHNOLOGY SQUARED AWAY AND
READY TO GO FOR IMPLEMENTATION
NEXT WEEK. AND THEN PENDING THAT
IMPLEMENTATION, PAYMENTS ARE
COLLECTED ON MAY 1ST OR AFTER
WOULD THEN BE SUBJECT TO THIS
NEW CHANGE IN THE LAW. FOR
QUESTION NUMBER TWO, PROVIDE AN
UPDATE ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S
EVALUATION OF THE TRIGGER FOR
CURRENTLY ASSISTED CALWORKS.
THIS IS A QUESTION MARK IN MY
MIND. THE TRIGGER EXPIRES THIS
YEAR. THERE'S NO EXPECTATION OF
THAT BEING, EXTENDED OR RESET AT
THIS POINT, SO IF THE
LEGISLATURE WANTED TO TAKE THIS
UP AT A LATER DATE, WE'D HAVE TO
KIND OF GO THROUGH THE WHOLE
MOTIONS AGAIN. UNLESS UNLESS
THINGS WERE ADJUSTED WITH THE
TIMELINE ON THE TRIGGER. WANT TO
WAIT OR. OKAY AN UPDATE ON THE
FINDINGS OF THE DEPARTMENT'S
PLAN TO IMPLEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
UNCOLLECTIBLE DEBT. SO THIS WAS
DONE IN TWO DIFFERENT PHASES.
THE FIRST PHASE WAS THE
MANDATORY UNCOLLECTIBLE DEBT
FACTORS, WHICH WERE IMPLEMENTED
JANUARY OF LAST YEAR,
SUBSEQUENTLY, WE'VE GOT A REPORT
WITH UC SAN DIEGO THAT IS
WRAPPING UP RIGHT NOW AND SHOULD
BE HERE WITH US IN MAY, RIGHT IN
THE SUMMERTIME. MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THERE. THEIR REPORT IS GOING
THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL FOR REVIEW
AND THEN WILL BE SENT TO US.
THAT WILL GIVE US DIRECTION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT TO ADOPT
FOR THE CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM.
TO WRAP UP AND REVIEW, DETERMINE
HOW TO ASSESS OUR REMAINING
CASES FOR DETERMINING
UNCOLLECTIBLE DEBT. AND FOR
QUESTION NUMBER FOUR, THE BUDGET
ACT INCLUDES THE 35.8 MILLION OF
ONGOING INCREASE SUPPORT FOR
CSAS. HOW MUCH OF THAT HAS BEEN
SPENT? APPROXIMATELY WE EXPECT
HALF OF THAT TO BE SPENT THIS
YEAR. SO THE BALANCE OF THAT IS
THE POTENTIAL FOR REVERTING TO
THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH IS ABOUT
$6 MILLION. SHORT AND SWEET, TO
THE POINT, I FORGOT YOUR LÀ. OH,
OKAY. THANK YOU. CAN YOU CAN YOU
SHARE SOME REMARKS ON THE FOURTH
QUESTION REGARDING WHAT WE CAN
SEE IN UNSPENT DOLLARS? AND IF
YOUR NUMBERS MATCH WHAT THE
DEPARTMENT IS SAYING WITH
REGARDS TO UNSPENT MONEY TO THE
LCS, LCS. YES. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. ANGELA SHORT WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE,
FOR THOSE NUMBERS, WE HAVE
RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION FROM
THE DEPARTMENT. AND SO THE
NUMBERS THAT WE ARE TRACKING, AS
FOR SPENDING FOR THE LCS, THE
ADMIN FUNDING FOR THE CURRENT
YEAR, THAT DOES MATCH OUR
UNDERSTANDING. IS THAT PART OF
THE UNDERSPEND FOR THIS YEAR IS
THAT THE DEPARTMENT DID ISSUE
INSTRUCTIONS TO LCS TO TAKE
ACTIONS TO REDUCE OR LIMIT COSTS
IN LINE WITH, INSTRUCTIONS FROM
THE GOVERNOR, GIVEN THE BUDGET
SITUATION. SO THAT IS PART OF
THE UNDERSPEND FOR THIS YEAR.
BUT OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS
THERE HAS BEEN A PATTERN OF
UNDERSPEND FOR THAT ADMIN
FUNDING AS WELL. OKAY. DO WE
HAVE, DO WE HAVE ANY WANT OR
WOULD WE BE LOOKING AT
POTENTIALLY CLAWING BACK FUTURE
YEARS LIKE JUST DO LET ME BRING
IT BACK FOR THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION, FUNDING. ONE OF THE
PROPOSALS IS TO DO A PERMANENT
$41 MILLION ONGOING CUT BECAUSE
IT'S ALWAYS UNSPENT. WE'RE
HEARING THAT IT'S ALWAYS UNSPENT
FOR THE ADMIN FUNDING FOR LCS.
DO WE LOOK AT THAT AS WE DO
SINGLE ALLOCATION AND SAYING,
HEY, WE SHOULD JUST
AUTOMATICALLY, CUT $6 MILLION
SINCE THAT'S AROUND THE AVERAGE
THAT IT GOES UNSPENT MOVING
FORWARD. SO THE TRINITY LCS IS,
IS, OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS,
THEY'VE HAD AN INCREASED AMOUNT
OF MONEY, MONEY OVER THREE
YEARS. AND SO THEY'VE BEEN
TRYING TO SPEND UP TO THAT. AND
THEY'RE TRYING TO RAMP UP. BUT
IT ALWAYS TAKES SOME TIME. AND
THE MONEY COMES AND THEN THEY
HAVE TO THEY HAVE TO START TO
MOVE. SO THEY HAVE BEEN
INCREASING THEIR ALLOCATION EACH
YEAR AND USING UP THE TWO YEARS
AGO FUNDING AND THEN THE ONE
YEAR AGO FUNDING, AND NOW
THEY'VE GOT THE THIRD YEAR THAT
THEY'RE TRYING TO USE UP. THEY
HAVE SINCE JANUARY ISH STARTED
TO TAPER THAT OFF, KNOWING THAT
NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS COMING
AND THEY'RE EXPECTING COST COLA
INCREASES AND NEGOTIATIONS TO
HAPPEN AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. SO
THEY'RE ANTICIPATING BALANCES
THAT ARE LEFT THIS YEAR ARE
GOING TO BE EATEN UP BY COLAS
AND EXPENSES IN SUBSEQUENT
YEARS. OKAY, MY SECOND QUESTION
IS RELATED TO YOUR RESPONSE TO
NUMBER TWO ON THE TRIGGER
LANGUAGE. CAN YOU SAY THAT TO ME
? AGAIN, THERE'S NO ANTICIPATION
FROM THE DEPARTMENT TO EXTEND
THAT TRIGGER LANGUAGE. WELL, WE
DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, SET TO
EXTEND THAT. WE'RE NOT EXACTLY
SURE HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE
WORKED OUT. SO IF THERE IS A
DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
CURRENT ASSISTANCE, FULL PASS
THROUGH, IT'S A CHALLENGE WHEN
IT COMES TO THE BUDGET. YOU CAN
SAY YES NOW, BUT OUR
IMPLEMENTATION IS PROBABLY TWO
YEARS OUT. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT
THE BUDGET IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE
THEN. SO WE'RE NOT EXACTLY SURE
HOW TO MANEUVER AROUND THAT TO
START THE TECHNOLOGY
ADJUSTMENTS, IF THAT'S WHAT'S
NECESSARY. AND THEN LOOK AT THE
BUDGET LATER. RIGHT NOW THEY'RE
TIED TOGETHER. YOU MAKE THE
DECISION TODAY THAT IT'S NOT
PHYSICALLY FEASIBLE BECAUSE OF
THE BUDGET, BUT THIS NEXT YEAR
IS NOT THE YEAR THAT WOULD BE
IMPACTED BY THAT ANYWAY. SO
WE'RE NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THE
INTENT IS HERE ON HOW TO ADDRESS
THE TRIGGER LANGUAGE. SO WE
COULDN'T POTENTIALLY JUST ADD
NEW TBL TO SAY ANOTHER TRIGGER.
OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S POSSIBLE.
OKAY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M
INTERESTED IN. JUST TO NOT NOT
LET IT GO. NOT LET IT GO. JUST
PUT ANOTHER TRIGGER. EXTEND THAT
LANGUAGE UNTIL WE HAVE
APPROPRIATION FOR THAT. SURE. MY
OTHER QUESTION, SIR, IS
REGARDING THE UNCOLLECTIBLE
DEBT. DO WE HAVE ANY ANY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE MIX OF
DEMOGRAPHICS WHO ARE UNDER THIS
CATEGORY OF UNCOLLECTIBLE DEBT?
I KNOW WE'VE MADE GREAT STRIDES
ON REMOVING PEOPLE OF VETERAN
BENEFITS, SSI AND SO FORTH, BUT
WHO IS MAKING UP MAJORITY OF
THIS DEMOGRAPHIC NOW? WELL, WE
ARE DEVELOPING A LOT MORE DATA
AND METRICS ON THE DEMOGRAPHICS.
OSTENSIBLY, THE MAJORITY OF THE
POPULATION, THE CHILD SUPPORT
PROGRAM IS ON THE POORER SIDE OF
OUR COMMUNITY. THOSE WITH MORE
MEANS WILL, WILL, WILL TYPICALLY
GET THEIR CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS
THROUGH FAMILY LAW AND WITH
ATTORNEYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO JUST IN GENERAL, OUR
POPULATION TENDS TO BE POORER.
AND OF COURSE, THE DEMOGRAPHIC
FOLLOW THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF
CALIFORNIA WITH WITH PEOPLE OF
COLOR MAKING UP A LARGE PORTION
OF OUR CHILD SUPPORT CASELOAD. I
COULD GATHER DATA ON, ON
SPECIFICALLY WHAT THAT LOOKS
LIKE, BUT THOSE TRENDS FOLLOW
CONSISTENT WITH CALIFORNIA'S
TRENDS AND JUST POPULATION. DOES
THE DEPARTMENT HAVE A NEXT
DEMOGRAPHIC THEY WANT TO FOCUS
ON? WE ARE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT,
PEOPLE OF COLOR AS OUR PRIMARY
DEMOGRAPHIC THAT WE'RE LOOKING
AT, SECONDARY WOULD BE VETERANS.
THOSE THAT ARE INCARCERATED,
SOME OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT
TEND TO END UP ON OUR
POPULATION. BUT DEMOGRAPHICS IS
ONE OF OUR PRIMARY ASIDE FROM
OUR BIGGEST POPULATION, WHICH IS
OF COURSE, JUST THE DEMOGRAPHIC
OF BEING POOR OR UNDER. LOWER
SIDE OF THE INCOME THRESHOLD.
OKAY. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, DO
YOU HAVE ANYTHING, ADDITIONAL TO
ADD? MÀ SANCHEZ THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE, NOTHING FURTHER TO
ADD. AND I KNOW I JUST ASKED YOU
SPECIFICALLY ON THAT QUESTION. I
DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS
ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO
COMMENT ON. THANK YOU. YES. JUST
REGARDING THE YOUR QUESTIONS
AROUND THE TRIGGER FOR THE FULL
PASS THROUGH FOR CURRENTLY
ASSISTED CALWORKS FAMILIES JUST
TO CONFIRM, THAT THAT IS OUR
UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. THE
LEGISLATURE COULD INCLUDE NEW
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE AS PART OF
THIS BUDGET. IT DIRECTING THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE TO
CONTINUE TO LOOK TO MAKE THAT
DETERMINATION AT A FUTURE DATE
THAT THE GENERAL FUND COULD
SUSTAIN THE IMPACT OF
IMPLEMENTING THE FULL PASS
THROUGH, BUT YES, OUR
UNDERSTANDING OR OUR BEST GUESS
AT THIS POINT IS THAT, OF
COURSE, WITH THE CURRENT BUDGET
SITUATION, IT WILL NOT MOVE
FORWARD THIS YEAR, RIGHT? YEAH,
100% UNFORTUNATE, I THINK WHEN I
FIRST LEARNED ABOUT THIS TOPIC
LAST YEAR, I WAS FLOORED. I
COULD NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS,
WHAT WE DO. I THINK IT'S REALLY
DISGUSTING, BUT I AM HAPPY THAT
NEXT WEEK WE'RE GOING TO RECTIFY
PART OF THAT, YOU KNOW,
SITUATION THAT'S SUCH AMAZING
NEWS TO HEAR, AND I AM
INTERESTED, WE WILL BE PUSHING
TO HAVE TPL TO EXTEND THE
TRIGGER AND BE MINDFUL THAT WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ONCE WE
HAVE FUNDS AVAILABLE, THAT WE
FINISH THE SECOND POPULATION AND
SO FORTH. THAT'S GREAT. I DON'T
HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR
YOU, THAT IS IT. ON ISSUE NUMBER
ONE, ARE YOU DOING ISSUE NUMBER
TWO AS WELL? I DO HAVE ISSUE
NUMBER TWO AS WELL. OKAY.
PERFECT. LET'S MOVE ON TO ISSUE
NUMBER TWO ON CHILD SUPPORT
TRUST FUND OVERPAYMENT. DAVID
KILGOUR, DIRECTOR FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT
SERVICES. SO THE PAYMENT TRUST
FUND ISSUE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
RESOLVE HERE IS, PARTIALLY IN
CONJUNCTION WITH ARREARS PASS
THROUGH AND POTENTIALLY CURRENT
SUPPORT PASS THROUGH DOWN THE
ROAD, OUR TRUST FUND IS THE FUND
WHERE ALL OF THE CHILD SUPPORT
GOES THROUGH $2.5 BILLION
ANNUALLY, CYCLES THROUGH THIS
ACCOUNT AND GOES OUT. WE HAVE A
TWO DAY TIME FRAME TURNAROUND
FOR DELIVERING THIS MONEY OUT.
HISTORICALLY, WE'VE UTILIZED
ARREARS WILL PASS THROUGH
CURRENT ASSISTANCE, THAT CHUNK
OF MONEY TO KIND OF KEEP THIS,
THIS ACCOUNT SOLVENT FOR MAKING
THOSE GO THROUGH. BUT NOW THAT
WE'RE PASSING THAT MONEY THROUGH
OUR RISK OF THAT ACCOUNT HITTING
ZERO AND US BEING NEGATIVE, IS A
PROBLEM. THERE ARE REASONS WHY
THE TRUST FUND TAKES NEGATIVE
HITS FOR, IRS NEGATIVE
ADJUSTMENTS THAT GETS PULLED
BACK WHEN WE INTERCEPT IRS
PAYMENTS THAT ARE INADVERTENTLY
APPLIED TO WRONG CASES, PAYMENTS
THAT ARE COLLECTED OR DISBURSED
IN EXCESS OF THE CHILD SUPPORT
ORDER, CREDIT CARD CHARGEBACKS.
ALL THOSE THINGS GO ON ACCOUNTS
AS ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES THAT WE
ATTEMPT TO COLLECT AT SOME POINT
DOWN THE ROAD. THIS TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE WILL GIVE US STRONGER
MECHANISMS TO GO AND COLLECT
THAT ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES. BUT
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE IS
A BALANCE, A NEGATIVE BALANCE
THAT WE KIND OF CARRY. WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THROUGH THIS,
THIS TERRIBLE LANGUAGE,
LANGUAGE, USING OUR OWN BUDGET,
WHATEVER WE MIGHT HAVE AT THE
END OF THE YEAR, PUT A LITTLE
BIT IN THERE OVER TIME SO THAT
WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT, THAT
ACCOUNT NEVER HITS ZERO. OKAY.
ALEJO, ANY COMMENT, ANGELA SHORT
WITH THE LAO JUST TO CONFIRM, WE
HAVE REVIEWED THE LANGUAGE AND
RAISED SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
WITH THE DEPARTMENT. SO AT THIS
POINT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY
CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS.
OUTSTANDING. OKAY. THANK YOU.
OMAR SANCHEZ WITH DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD.
THANK YOU. OMAR, NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS ON MY END. WE'RE GOING
TO HOLD BOTH ISSUES ONE AND TWO
OPEN AND THEN MOVE ON TO PUBLIC
COMMENT ON ISSUES ONE AND TWO.
IF YOU WISH TO GIVE PUBLIC
COMMENT ON DEPARTMENT OF CHILD.
CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, PLEASE
STEP FORWARD. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIRMAN NAVARRO.
REBECCA GONZALES. AND TODAY, I'M
HERE WITH THE TRUTH AND JUSTICE
AND CHILD SUPPORT COALITION,
WHICH WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY IS PART OF. WE ARE A
COALITION OF OVER 50
ORGANIZATIONS THAT SEEK TO BRING
EQUITABLE REFORM TO OUR STATE'S
CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM TO BETTER
SUPPORT LOW INCOME CHILDREN AND
THEIR FAMILIES TO REDUCE CHILD
POVERTY. I REALLY WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE. THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT WE ARE REALLY
LOOKING TOWARD. WE ARE HAVING
CONVERSATIONS, HAD CONVERSATIONS
WITH OUR STAFF, WITH YOUR STAFF,
AND THAT WE WANT TO REAFFIRM THE
STATE'S COMMITMENT AND
PRIORITIES TO ENABLE FULL PASS
THROUGH OF CHILD SUPPORT
PAYMENTS TO FAMILIES THAT ARE
CURRENTLY ON CALWORKS AS PART OF
THE 2627 BUDGET. WE ALSO WANT TO
SUPPORT NECESSARY FUNDING FOR
DCS AND DSS TO CONTINUE THE
AUTOMATION AND SYSTEM CHANGE
NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THIS
POLICY ONCE, WHEN. SO THERE ARE
NO FURTHER DELAYS ONCE FUNDING
IS AVAILABLE. LASTLY, IN THE
FUTURE WE NEED TO PASS
LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ON OTHER
BENEFITS OF FAMILY MAY BE
RECEIVING AS OUTLINED BY THE
SOON TO BE RELEASED DSS
WORKGROUP REPORT ON SOME OF THE
OTHER ISSUES YOU MENTIONED. OH,
SORRY, QUIGLEY. OH, WE WANT TO
STOP THE COLLECTION OF ALL
GOVERNMENT OWED DEBT. WE HAVE
SUGGESTED ASSESS PRIOR TO 2008
BECAUSE THERE WAS A DATA CHANGE
FROM THE COUNTIES HOLDING THE
DATA TO THE STATE. AND SO THERE
WAS SOME DISCREPANCIES. AND
PRIOR TO 2008 IS REALLY OLD
DEBT. AND KIDS ARE GROWN UP BY
THEN, AND THEN ALSO MAKE THE
INDIVIDUAL DEBT REDUCTION
PROGRAM ACCESSIBLE TO ELIGIBLE
LOW INCOME PARENTS TO HAVE THEIR
DEBT FORGIVEN AND STOP THE
COLLECTION OF INTEREST ON
GOVERNMENT OWED CHILD SUPPORT
DEBT. THANK YOU. AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ON
THESE ISSUES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP,
DIRECTOR. I FORGOT TO ASK YOU
THAT QUESTION. AND WHEN I ASKED
YOU THE QUESTION REGARDING WHAT
DEMOGRAPHIC POTENTIALLY WE'RE
LOOKING AT, I KNOW YOU MENTIONED
PEOPLE OF COLOR AND SO FORTH.
THAT'S ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
IN THEIR 50S AND 60S AND STILL
HAVE THAT, COLLECTIVE DEBT. ARE
WE FOUR YEARS FULL PASS THROUGH?
YES. SO THE CHILDREN ARE NO
LONGER, ON ARE NO LONGER
CHILDREN ON THE SYSTEM OR NO
LONGER PART OF THE PROGRAM. SO
YES, THESE ARE FOLKS THAT ARE A
LITTLE OLDER, TYPICALLY, BUT
THEY STILL HAVE THIS
OUTSTANDING, DEBT THAT'S ON
GOVERNMENT. AND RIGHT NOW WE
STILL RETAIN THAT. BUT NOW WE'LL
BE PUSHING THAT THROUGH TO THE
OTHER SIDE. BUT THEY'RE THE ONES
WHO ARE GOING TO GET THE RELIEF
IN THE WEEK. THOSE PAYMENTS ON
THOSE INDIVIDUALS WILL BE PASSED
THROUGH TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
FAMILY INSTEAD OF RETAINED FOR
GOVERNMENT. THAT'S WE JUST WILL
WE'LL PUSH THE MONEY THROUGH TO
THE FAMILIES INSTEAD OF
RETAINING IT FOR GOOD. RIGHT.
OKAY. YES. SORRY I MISSPOKE
HERE. SO THE ON THE SIDE OF JUST
THE UNCOLLECTIBLE DEBT, ARE CAN
WE ARE WE FOCUSING ON JUST
SPECIFIC DEMOGRAPHICS, LIKE THE
ONES THAT ARE LIKE, OH, DEBT
FROM 2008 AND SO FORTH, ARE WE
PRIORITIZE PRIORITIZING CERTAIN
DEMOGRAPHICS? IT IS NOT SPECIFIC
DEMOGRAPHICS PER SE. IT'S INCOME
HISTORY. IT'S INCARCERATION.
IT'S THOSE TYPES OF FACTORS THAT
MAKE US BELIEVE THAT THIS IS
LIKELY TO BE UNCOLLECTIBLE AND
THEN WHEN WE CAN REMOVE THAT
FROM THE SYSTEM. OKAY. THANK YOU
. YEAH. GOOD MORNING, KEVIN
ESTÁN COALITION CALIFORNIA
WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS. WE
CONCERN ABOUT THIS UNCOLLECTIBLE
DEBT. THEY KNOW WHO IT IS. I
DON'T KNOW WHY. THEY JUST DON'T
WIPE IT OUT. I MEAN, THIS IS THE
21ST CENTURY. I COULD UNDERSTAND
IN THE 20TH CENTURY, THEY HAD A
PROBLEM, AND THE OTHER PROBLEM
WE HAVE IS THE OVERPAYMENT
LANGUAGE THAT THEY HAVE. WE
OPPOSE THAT BECAUSE IT LACKS DUE
PROCESS OF LAW. BASICALLY, WHAT
IT SAYS IS THAT THEY WILL
DETERMINE THERE'S AN OVERPAYMENT
, AND THEN THEY WOULD
AUTOMATICALLY BY THE COMPUTER,
JUST COLLECT IT, NEVER GIVE YOU
A RIGHT TO A NOTICE OF ACTION
AND A RIGHT TO A HEARING, WHICH
IS BASIC DUE PROCESS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. ANDREW SHANE WITH GRACE
AND CHILD POVERTY I'M GOING TO
ALIGN WITH THE TRUTH AND JUSTICE
COALITION ON THE EXTENDING THE
TRIGGER LANGUAGE. THANKS FOR
YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THAT AS WELL
AS THE UNCOLLECTIBLE DEBT AND AS
WELL ON THE NEED FOR DUE
PROCESS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
ANDREW. I'M CHRISTINA GARCIA.
I'M A PARENT LEADER WITH PARENT
VOICES FROM MARIN COUNTY, I'M A
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVOR WHO
HAD TO OBTAIN CAL WORKS,
RESULTING IN MY ABUSER BEING
WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT
CAL WORKS IN THE NEXT ISSUE IF
YOU WANT TO. IT'S RELEVANT TO
THIS. SO WHEN I WAS OBTAINING
SERVICES THAT ALERTED MY ABUSER
THAT I WAS OBTAINING SERVICES,
HE HAD TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, BUT
I NEVER RECEIVED ANY OF THAT
MONEY DURING THE TIME THAT UNTIL
MY CHILD WAS 18 YEARS OLD, THAT
MADE IT SO THAT I COULDN'T GET
HIS BRACES. I'VE BEEN, ON. I
WASN'T ABLE TO GIVE HIM
NECESSARY THINGS. I'VE STRUGGLED
WITH HOUSING AND FOOD INSECURITY
WHILE BEING ON CAL WORKS, AND,
IT'S JUST REALLY UNJUST THAT
THAT THIS IS THE WAY THAT IT IS.
IT DOESN'T GO DIRECTLY TO THE
FAMILIES MAKING IT SO THAT I
CAN'T GIVE HIM A COMFORTABLE
LIVING. SO THANKS. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS,
DIRECTOR, ONE LAST QUESTION TO
YOU. IN THE MILITARY, WE USE
THIS PHRASE, CAN YOU GIVE IT TO
ME BARNEY STYLE ON UNCOLLECTIBLE
DEBT? PLAIN AND SIMPLE. WHY
CAN'T WE ERASE THAT DEBT WE
CURRENTLY OR PREVIOUSLY DID NOT
HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO
REMOVE UNCOLLECTIBLE DEBT. WE
WERE ONLY GIVEN AUTHORITY TO
NEGOTIATE THE REDUCTION OF THAT
DEBT. WHEN A PERSON IS PAYING,
CHILD SUPPORT WITH US. WE'VE
SINCE GOTTEN THIS MOST RECENT
LAW THAT ALLOWS US TO START TO
REMOVE UNCOLLECTIBLE DEBT. WE
MADE THE DETERMINATION ON THE
MANDATORY FACTORS. NOW WE NEED
SOME SORT OF ALGORITHM, SOME
SORT OF DIRECTION TO GIVE OUR
LOCAL CHILD SUPPORT AGENCIES, A
COURSE OF ACTION. TAKE THESE
STEPS WHEN THESE INSTANCES
OCCUR. IN YOUR CASE, WE JUST
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THOSE WERE. AND
SO THAT'S WHAT THE STUDY BEING
DONE BY UC SAN DIEGO WAS TO SAY
IN THESE INSTANCES, YOU SHOULD
EVEN THE CHILD SUPPORT DEBT
UNCOLLECTIBLE AND REMOVE IT FROM
THE CASE. OKAY. BECAUSE WE CAN'T
JUST DO A SWEEPING EVERYONE IS
SCOT FREE, RIGHT? THAT IS
POSSIBLE. THERE'S A COUPLE OF
DIFFERENT WAYS THAT COULD HAVE
BEEN DONE. I MEAN, YOU WOULDN'T
NEED A FULL PASS THROUGH THEN
BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO DEBT
TO PASS THROUGH, YOU COULD JUST
MAKE THAT THAT SWEEPING
STATEMENT. YOU COULD CHANGE ALL
THE DEBT THAT'S OWED TO THE
GOVERNMENT TO OWED TO THE
PARENTS, IS ANOTHER WAY THAT
THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE. BUT
THOSE WERE OPTIONS THAT HAVEN'T
BEEN ENTERTAINED IN THE PAST.
OKAY. AND THEN I GUESS THAT
WASN'T MY LAST QUESTION, MR.
KEVIN BROUGHT UP A POINT ON
ISSUE NUMBER TWO, DO WE HAVE
CONCERNS THAT WE'RE REMOVING DUE
PROCESS THAT WE DON'T, NOT FROM
OUR PERSPECTIVE. THERE'S A
COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT
THIS GETS HANDLED. WE ASK THE
PARENT THROUGH THESE DIFFERENT
LETTERS WHEN THEY WANT. IF WE
WERE TO COLLECT THAT MONEY, HOW
THAT HOW THAT GETS DISPERSED, DO
WE TAKE IT OUT OF THE NEXT,
PAYMENTS THAT COME IN AND
LACKING ANY DIRECTION? WE WAIT
TILL THE VERY END OF THE CASE.
THEY'VE BEEN PAID EVERYTHING
THAT THEY'RE DUE, AND THEN WE
COLLECT THE BALANCE OF WHAT IS,
WHAT WAS OVERPAID TO THE
RECEIVING PARENT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, SIR. I APPRECIATE IT. ALL
RIGHT, THAT CONCLUDES OUR FIRST
APARTMENT. WE'RE NOW MOVING ON
TO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES. AND WELCOME UP THE,
THE DEPARTMENT TO COME ON UP
DIRECTOR JOHNSON AND THEN IF YOU
ARE PART OF THIS PANELIST,
PLEASE WELCOME US IN THE. WELL.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR KIM JOHNSON,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT
THE CALWORKS PROGRAM, WHICH IS
SERVING AN AVERAGE OF 340,000
FAMILIES AND 665,000 CHILDREN
EVERY MONTH, PROVIDING CASH
ASSISTANCE, EDUCATION,
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING,
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES AIMED AT
GIVING FAMILIES EXPERIENCING
POVERTY OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD
RESILIENCE AND ACHIEVE CRITICAL
ECONOMIC MOBILITY. THE PROGRAM
PREDOMINANTLY SERVES FEMALE HEAD
OF HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE WOMEN OF
COLOR, AND I WILL MOVE RIGHT
INTO YOUR QUESTIONS. RELATED TO
THE PROPOSED REDUCTIONS. FIRST,
FOR FAMILY STABILIZATION. THIS
PROGRAM HAS BEEN A COMPONENT OF
THE PROGRAM FOR OVER THE LAST
TEN YEARS, AIMING TO PROVIDE
INTENSIVE CASE MANAGEMENT AND
SERVICES TO CALWORKS
PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR FAMILIES
WHO ARE EXPERIENCING A CRISIS OR
IDENTIFIED SITUATION THAT IS
DESTABILIZING FOR THEIR FAMILY
AND IS INTERFERING WITH THE
ADULT'S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE
IN WELFARE, TO WORK ACTIVITIES.
THIS COULD BE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
SUBSTANCE ABUSE, MENTAL HEALTH
ISSUES, OR RISK OF HOMELESSNESS.
SERVICES CAN INCLUDE MORE
INTENSIVE CASE MANAGEMENT,
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, EMERGENCY
SHELTER, REHABILITATIVE
SERVICES, COUNSELING, AND MORE.
WHILE PARTICIPATING IN FAMILY
STABILIZATION, FAMILIES ARE NOT
SUBJECT TO SANCTIONS OR HOURLY
WORK REQUIREMENTS AND HAVE AN
EXECUTED FAMILY STABILIZATION
PLAN RATHER THAN A WELFARE TO
WORK PLAN. IN FISCAL YEAR 2223,
FAMILY STABILIZATION SERVICES
SUPPORTED APPROXIMATELY 44,000
FAMILIES, OR APPROXIMATELY
11,000 FAMILIES PER QUARTER. THE
FAMILY STABILIZATION 2223
EXPENDITURES WERE $60.4 MILLION.
THE 2324 EXPENDITURES ARE
PROJECTED TO BE $60.5 MILLION.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED
TO THE COSTS ARE INCLUDED ON
PAGE 11 OF YOUR AGENDA. THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSES A
REVERSION OF $55 MILLION GENERAL
FUND IN CURRENT YEAR, AND A
REDUCTION OF $71 MILLION IN
BUDGET YEAR AND ANNUALLY
THEREAFTER, EFFECTIVELY
ELIMINATING THE PROGRAM.
HOWEVER, THE BUDGET DOES NOT
PROPOSE TO STATUTORILY ELIMINATE
THE FAMILY STABILIZATION PROGRAM
. THE NEXT AREA IS SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT, WELFARE TO WORK.
PARTICIPANTS CAN TAKE PART IN A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES,
SUCH AS EMPLOYMENT, BOTH
SUBSIDIZED AND UNSUBSIDIZED
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, JOB
SEARCH, JOB READINESS, AND MORE.
EXPANDED SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT
PROGRAM HAS OPERATED OVER THE
LAST TEN YEARS, AND COUNTIES
PARTNER WITH PRIVATE, NONPROFIT
AND PUBLIC AGENCIES TO PROVIDE
CALWORKS PARTICIPANTS WITH JOB
EXPERIENCE, EMPLOYMENT
PLACEMENTS THROUGH EXPANDED
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT ARE
TYPICALLY SIX MONTHS OR SHORTER
IN LENGTH, BUT CAN BE EXTENDED
UP TO A TOTAL OF 12 MONTHS. THIS
PROGRAM SERVES 8250 PARTICIPANTS
PER MONTH. THE 2122 EXPENDITURES
WERE 83.8 MILLION 2223 90.5
MILLION, AND I'D AGAIN REFER YOU
TO PAGE 12 OF YOUR AGENDA FOR
MORE ON COST AND EXPENDITURES.
AS THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
PROPOSES TO REVERT FUNDING FOR
THE ESC PROGRAM BY 134.1 MILLION
IN 2324, AND REDUCED FUNDING BY
THAT SAME AMOUNT IN BUDGET YEAR
AND ANNUALLY THEREAFTER. THE
2023 BUDGET ACT INCLUDES AGAIN
THE PROGRAM TO ELIMINATE.
HOWEVER, AGAIN, THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET DOES NOT PROPOSE TO
STATUTORILY ELIMINATE THE
PROGRAM IN TERMS OF IMPACT.
COUNTIES WILL CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AND
PROVIDE JOB RETENTION
ACTIVITIES. SUPPORT VIA THE
SINGLE ALLOCATION COUNTIES WILL
HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE SOME SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO FAMILIES,
BUT CLEARLY NOT AT THE SAME
DEGREE THAT THEY COULD
CURRENTLY, WITH THE ADDITIONAL
FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM ALSO
WOULD POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE
SOME ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES,
INCLUDING SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT
AND APPRENTICESHIP, THAT COULD
BE AVAILABLE LOCALLY THROUGH THE
WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND
OPPORTUNITY ACT, AS WELL. THE
THIRD AREA IS INTENSIVE CASE
MANAGEMENT. THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET INCLUDES A PROPOSED DELAY
FOR THE PLANNED INCREASE TO
INTENSIVE CASE MANAGEMENT HOURS
TO ADDRESS THE PROJECTED
SHORTFALL. INTENSIVE CASE
MANAGEMENT PROVIDES MORE
INTENSIVE OR ONE ON ONE SUPPORT
FOR PARTICIPANTS WHO MAY NEED
ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE IN
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO
EMPLOYMENT OR STABILITY. THE
BUDGET PROPOSES TO DELAY THE
PLANNED INCREASE TO INTENSIVE
CASE MANAGEMENT HOURS TO ADDRESS
THE SHORTFALL, RESULTING IN A
SAVINGS OF 46 POINT MILLION,
$46.9 MILLION IN BUDGET YEAR AND
47.4 GENERAL FUND ANNUALLY
THEREAFTER. AND SO, AGAIN, WE
HAD A WE HAD SPECIFICALLY
IDENTIFIED HOW MANY HOURS WOULD
BE ASSOCIATED WITH INTENSIVE
CASE MANAGEMENT FROM YEAR OVER
YEAR. IT WAS PLANNED TO GO UP TO
TEN HOURS IN BUDGET YEAR IN ARE
PROPOSING TO KEEP IT AT THE 8.75
AS IT IS IN CURRENT YEAR. AND
FINALLY, THE SINGLE ALLOCATION,
AGAIN BASED ON PROJECTED
CASELOAD DODD COUNTIES RECEIVE A
FIXED AMOUNT OF FUNDING ANNUALLY
FOR ADMINISTERING CALWORKS. IT
INCLUDES EMPLOYMENT SERVICES,
BUT IT ALSO HAS ADMINISTRATION
AND THE CAL LEARN INTENSIVE CASE
MANAGEMENT. AND IT IS FUNGIBLE
ACROSS THOSE THREE AREAS WITHIN
THE SINGLE ALLOCATION. THE TO
PROJECT TO, ADDRESS THE
SHORTFALL, THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
PROPOSES TO REVERT $336 MILLION
OF UNUSED GENERAL FUND IN 2223
AT AN EARLIER TIMELINE THAN WE
WOULD HAVE ALREADY ASSESSED WHAT
WAS REMAINING IN THAT FUND
INSTEAD OF WAITING UNTIL JUNE OF
2025, THE EARLY REVERSION WILL
NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON CLIENT
SUPPORT AND SERVICES. FOR
CURRENT YEAR. THE BUDGET
INCLUDES 1.7 BILLION FOR THE
SINGLE ALLOCATION, WHICH IS A
DECREASE OF 40.8 MILLION
COMPARED TO THE BUDGET ACT. THIS
PROPOSAL WOULD RESULT IN LESS
FUNDING FOR COUNTIES TO
ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM, WHICH
INCLUDES DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY
AND CASE MANAGEMENT. THAT'S THE
IMPACT OF THAT PROPOSAL. AND
THEN FOR BUDGET YEAR AND
FURTHER, THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
ALSO INCLUDES $1.5 BILLION FOR
THE SINGLE ALLOCATION, WHICH
REPRESENTS A DECREASE OF 159.8
MILLION FROM CURRENT YEAR. AND
THAT DECREASE IN EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES CASELOAD. THE ONE TIME
NATURE OF THE ELIGIBILITY ADMIN
SUPPLEMENT THAT WE HAD PROVIDED
IS PROPOSED TO BE ELIMINATED, AS
WELL AS A DECREASE OF ONE
FUNDING INCREMENT OF $27.5
MILLION DUE TO CASELOAD. WE
HAVE, IN OUR METHODOLOGY, AS
CASELOAD GROWS OR REDUCES
INCREMENTS SET FORWARD THAT IS
GOING FORWARD HERE. AND SO WE'RE
PROPOSING TO DECREASE BY ONE
FUNDING INCREMENT BASED ON
CASELOAD NUMBERS. THE COMMITTEE
ALSO ASKED ABOUT EXPENDITURES
AND WHY THERE IS REMAINING
FUNDS. WHY THERE ARE REMAINING
FUNDS IN THE SINGLE ALLOCATION.
AGAIN, AS I REFERENCED, THE
SINGLE ALLOCATION IS FUNGIBLE
ACROSS THE THREE AREAS THAT
WE'VE NOTED. WE HAVE HEARD FROM
COUNTIES THAT THERE'S CONCERNS
AROUND INSUFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION FUNDING, WHICH
COULD CAUSE COUNTIES TO HOLD
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FUNDING FOR
THAT PARTICULAR PURPOSE. SOME
VACANCY RATES, A PHENOMENON
THAT'S NOT JUST HERE IN SOCIAL
SERVICES, BUT OTHER PLACES
ACROSS THE WORKFORCE. SOME
PANDEMIC RELATED IMPACTS. AND
THE DECREASING CASELOAD HAS ALSO
CONTRIBUTED TO UNDERSPENDING IN
CURRENT YEARS. AND THEN FINALLY,
YOU ASKED THE QUESTION RELATED
TO WHY THESE PROGRAMS. AND I
JUST APPRECIATE THE QUESTION FOR
US AT SOCIAL SERVICES, WE SERVE
PEOPLE. SO WE APPRECIATE THE
QUESTION. AND THE CARE IN WHICH
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED.
ANY PROPOSALS TO REDUCE SERVICES
TO PEOPLE AND THE IMPACT THAT
THEY HAVE AS I REFERENCED, SOME
OF THE PROPOSALS, LIKE THE EARLY
REVERSION, HAVE NO HARM TO
INDIVIDUALS BEING SERVED. AND
THAT'S, OF COURSE, WHERE WE WANT
TO START THE CONVERSATIONS. THE
DEFICIT IS LARGER. SO I ALSO
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS
NO PROPOSAL, FOR EXAMPLE, TO
REDUCE CALWORKS GRANTS. IN FACT,
AS YOUR AGENDA POINTS OUT, THERE
IS A PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE A 0.8%
INCREASE THAT'S DUE TO THE
TRIGGERING OF THE REVENUE AND
THE CHILD POVERTY AND FAMILY
SUPPLEMENTAL SUB ACCOUNT. AND WE
KNOW THE DIFFERENCE THAT CASH
ASSISTANCE MAKES FOR THOSE
EXPERIENCING POVERTY GOING
FORWARD. YOUR FINAL QUESTION WAS
RELATED TO THE SAFETY NET
RESERVE, AND I'M GOING TO REFER
TO MY COLLEAGUES AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE FOR THAT
QUESTION. EMILY MARSHALL,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. SO TO
ANSWER QUESTION NUMBER THREE,
WITHOUT THE PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL
OF THE SAFETY NET RESERVE,
ADDITIONAL GENERAL FUND
SOLUTIONS WOULD BE NECESSARY TO
BALANCE THE BUDGET AND MAINTAIN
EXISTING SERVICES FOR MEDI-CAL
AND CALWORKS. THE ADMINISTRATION
WORKS TO DELIVER A BALANCED
BUDGET TO THE LEGISLATURE, AND
WE WILL WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
COSTS RELATED TO CASELOAD TO
PRODUCE A BALANCED BUDGET AND
WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO WITH THE
TOOLS WE HAVE AT THE TIME, AS
FAR AS REPLENISHING THE SAFETY
NET RESERVE, THAT IS NOT
CURRENTLY PART OF THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET, I DON'T LIKE THAT
ANSWER. MEANING I DON'T THINK I
GOT ANYTHING OUT OF THAT. I
WOULD LIKE YOU TO GO DEEPER,
HONESTLY, AT THIS TIME, IT IS
NOT PART OF THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET AND OUR GOVERNOR'S AND
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL. SO WE
CAN'T SPEAK TO REPLENISHING THE
SAFETY NET RESERVE AT THE
MOMENT. THE FIRST PART, I THINK
THE FIRST PART, I KNOW IT'S NOT
PART OF THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET TO
REPLENISH IT, BUT I THINK SO.
YOU THINK IT'S WITHIN ITS
STATUTORY DEFINITION, DEPLETING
THIS ENTIRE FUND AND CUTTING
CALWORKS PROGRAMS, RIGHT? I
THINK OUR THOUGHT PROCESS HERE
WAS THAT MORE FUNDING WOULD NEED
MORE SOLUTIONS WOULD NEED TO
HAPPEN IF WE DIDN'T DRAW DOWN
THIS 900 MILLION FOR THE SAFETY
NET RESERVE. CAN YOU TELL ME
DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, WHAT THE $900
MILLION WOULD COVER? WE CAN'T
SAY WE DON'T GO PROGRAM TO THE
PROGRAM, BUT IF THIS FUND IS
CREATED JUST FOR CALWORKS AND
MEDI-CAL AND MEDI-CAL. YEAH. AND
MEDI-CAL, WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW
WHAT IT'S FUNDING. RIGHT. SO
WHAT IS IT COVERING UNDER
CALWORKS AND MEDI-CAL? I DON'T
HAVE THAT INFORMATION WITH ME
RIGHT NOW, BUT I CAN GET BACK.
BUT THIS IS THE PANEL ON THIS
SPECIFIC TOPIC. WHY WOULDN'T YOU
COME WITH MORE INFORMATION? WE
CAN'T SAY THE PROGRAMMATIC LEVEL
AT WHICH THE DOLLARS ARE GOING
TO AT THE MOMENT, BUT THE 900
MILLION IS DRAWN DOWN FOR
MEDI-CAL AND CALWORKS IS A
SIGNIFICANT CHUNK OF THAT IS,
YOU KNOW, MEDI-CAL IS PART OF
THAT'S CALWORKS. SO MORE FUNDING
FROM CALWORKS WOULD NEED TO BE
DRAWN DOWN. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE
MEDI-CAL TEAM SINCE WE DON'T
HAVE THEM HERE TODAY. OF COURSE,
A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT WOULD HAVE
TO FILL THE BUDGET GAP IF WE DID
NOT PULL DOWN THE 900 MILLION.
SO WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT
THE PROGRAMS. WHICH PROGRAMS ARE
YOU PROTECTING? THE REST OF THE
CALWORKS CALWORKS IS BASICALLY
GETTING SLASHED. SO WHAT ARE YOU
PROTECTING? I JUST ADDITIONAL
YEAH. I'M LIKE, REALLY WONDERING
HOW WE'RE PROTECTING CALWORKS.
WE WOULD NEED TO CUT MORE
PROGRAMS IF WE DID NOT PULL DOWN
THE SAFETY NET UNDER CALWORKS.
YES, POTENTIALLY. I MEAN,
OUTSIDE OF THE GRANTS, WHAT ELSE
IS LEFT? I, I WOULD I HONESTLY
WHAT ELSE IS LEFT UNDER CALWORKS
TO CUT. SO HOW IS THE $900
MILLION BEING UTILIZED TO
PROTECT CALWORKS? THE GOVERNOR
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET STILL
MAINTAINS OVER $1 BILLION OF
FUNDING. GENERAL FUND FOR
CALWORKS PROGRAMS IN THE 2425
BUDGET. SO WE STILL HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT PROGRAM HERE WITH
CALWORKS, AND WE WOULD NEED TO
CUT MORE IF WE DID NOT PULL DOWN
THE SAFETY NET RESERVE, I THINK
IT IT WOULD HELP STAKEHOLDERS,
MYSELF INCLUDED, TO REALLY FIND
OUT AGAIN WHEN MY COMMENTS IN
THE BEGINNING LIKE HOW WHERE
DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, THE MATCH OF
WHAT WE'RE PUTTING INTO THIS, I
WOULD BE ON BOARD WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE DEPLETING THIS FUND IF
CALWORKS WAS BEING PROTECTED, I
WOULD STAND WITH YOU ON THAT,
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE
HAVE TO DO, I WOULD STAND WITH
YOU IF WE EVEN JUST TOOK HALF OF
IT OUT AND WE LEFT SOME IN THERE
BECAUSE IT'S PROTECTING CALWORKS
, AND WE STILL HAVE TO DELAY
SOME OTHER PROGRAMS 100, I GET
IT, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE
GETTING NOTHING HERE. WE'RE
GETTING DEPLETION OF FUND AND
MAJORITY PROGRAMS GETTING
ELIMINATED. LIKE IT SEEMS REALLY
UNEVEN, WHERE THE WHOLE POINT OF
THIS WAS TO ENSURE THAT WE
PROTECT THESE PROGRAMS. AND SO
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT YEAR, WHICH
ALLOW US, LEO, ALLOW YOU PROTECT
THE NEXT THREE YEARS, A MINIMUM
OF $30 BILLION DEFICIT, A
MINIMUM. AND SOMEHOW BUDGET SUB
THREE IS ALWAYS FIRST IN LINE TO
GO. SO WHERE ARE WE GOING TO
TURN TO NEXT YEAR, 2027 AND SO
FORTH? IF WE HAVE NOTHING IN
THIS FUND, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO
COME BACK TO ME AND SAY, WE HAVE
NOTHING AS FUND, BUT WE'RE GOING
TO PROTECT THE PROGRAMS? I DON'T
THINK SO. I DON'T THINK THE
ADMINISTRATION WILL COME BACK
AND SAY THAT, I'M TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT, WHAT DO I GO BACK
AND TELL THE STAKEHOLDERS AS TO
WHAT WE'RE DOING ON THE FRONT
LINES? AND I KNOW NO ONE HERE
WANTS TO CUT THESE PROGRAMS.
DIRECTOR, YOU MENTIONED YOU'RE
HERE FOR THE PEOPLE LIKE I KNOW
IT. NO ONE IN THE RIGHT MIND
WANTS TO CUT THESE PROGRAMS. I
KNOW WE HAVE TO DO A HARD
DECISIONS, BUT I NEED TO JUSTIFY
IT. NO ONE IS JUSTIFYING TO ME
WHY THIS IS HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF
VERBATIM. THE BUDGET IS BAD. THE
BUDGET IS BAD. LIKE I NEED TO
FIND. HELP ME HELP YOU STAND
WITH YOU AND SAY, HEY
STAKEHOLDERS, WE HAVE TO DO THIS
BECAUSE OF THIS AND WE'RE
GETTING EVERY DOLLAR FROM THE
$900 MILLION DIRECTLY INTO THIS
BECAUSE WE KNOW ALL THESE FUNDS
THAT ARE CREATED ARE JUST
OFFSETTING GENERAL FUNDS, AND WE
DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT'S BEING
USED FOR. RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I
NEED MORE OF. AND I'M GETTING
JUST A LITTLE BIT TIRED OF
PEOPLE COMING TO THIS MEETING.
AND I'M LIKE, WE DON'T HAVE THAT
ANSWER. YOU GOT TO COME A LITTLE
BIT MORE PREPARED. DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE ON ALL THE NUMBERS AS TO
WHY, WHERE IT'S GOING. THAT'S I
JUST I IT'S JUST HARD FOR ME TO
BE ON THAT SIDE OF IT, WITHOUT
HAVING A DIRECT ANSWER. SO
ANYTHING TO SAY? NO. WE'RE OKAY.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING
TO MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT PANELIST,
YOU, IF YOU COULD PLEASE,
INTRODUCE YOURSELF FROM
CALIFORNIA BUDGET AND POLICY
CENTER, SENIOR POLICY FELLOW.
YES, MONICA, YOU'RE MONICA. I
CAN SAY THAT ONE. OKAY GOOD
MORNING, SENATOR MENGIBAR. I'M
MONICA SAUCEDO WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BUDGET AND POLICY
CENTER. WE'RE A NONPARTISAN
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS NONPROFIT.
THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME TO
SPEAK. TODAY. I'LL BE PRESENTING
INFORMATION RELATED TO THE
PROPOSED CUTS TO THE EXPANDED
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT AND FAMILY
STABILIZATION PROGRAMS UNDER
CALWORKS. AS WAS MENTIONED,
THESE PROGRAMS PLAY A PIVOTAL
ROLE IN SUPPORTING CALWORKS
FAMILIES. THE EXPANDED
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
OFFERS INVALUABLE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR PARTICIPANTS TO GAIN JOB
EXPERIENCE AND SKILL
DEVELOPMENT. THIS ASSISTANCE IS
CRUCIAL FOR TRANSITIONING INTO
SUSTAINABLE EMPLOYMENT, WHICH
PROMOTES LONG TERME ECONOMIC
STABILITY IN THE FAMILY
STABILIZATION PROGRAM SERVES AS
A LIFELINE FOR VULNERABLE
FAMILIES FACING CRISES, OFFERING
A SPECTRUM OF CRITICAL SERVICES
INCLUDING HOUSING ASSISTANCE,
MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT AND CRISIS
INTERVENTION. THIS PROGRAM
ADDRESSES MULTIFACETED BARRIERS
TO EMPLOYMENT AND FAMILY
WELL-BEING. THE FAMILY
STABILIZATION PROGRAM DIFFERS
FROM OTHER CALWORKS COMPONENTS
IN THAT COUNTIES CAN PROVIDE
THESE SERVICES TO THE CHILDREN
IN THESE FAMILIES, AS WELL AS
THE ADULTS, WHICH ALLOWS ALL
FAMILY MEMBERS TO OBTAIN THE
WRAPAROUND SERVICES. TOGETHER,
THESE PROGRAMS BETTER SUPPORT
FAMILIES IN OBTAINING
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC SECURITY
AND IMPROVING THEIR GENERAL
WELL-BEING. THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL TO FULLY ELIMINATE
THESE PROGRAMS THREATENS TO
UPEND THE PROGRESS MADE IN
SUPPORTING CALWORKS FAMILIES,
VULNERABLE FAMILIES ALREADY
GRAPPLING WITH SYSTEMIC BARRIERS
WILL BEAR THE BRUNT OF THESE
CUTS, WHICH WILL DEEPEN THEIR
ECONOMIC INSECURITY AND DISRUPT
THEIR PATH TO SELF-SUFFICIENCY.
THE IMPACT ON FAMILY STABILITY
CANNOT BE OVERSTATED. BY
STRIPPING AWAY ESSENTIAL SUPPORT
SERVICES, THE PROPOSED CUTS
JEOPARDIZE THE WELL-BEING OF
CHILDREN AND PARENTS ALIKE,
POTENTIALLY PUSHING THEM DEEPER
INTO POVERTY AND PERPETUATING
CYCLES OF DISADVANTAGE. WE SAW
THIS DURING THE GREAT RECESSION,
WHEN CALIFORNIA FACED A
SUBSTANTIAL BUDGET DEFICIT,
PROMPTING POLICYMAKERS TO ENACT
DRASTIC SPENDING CUTS EXCEEDING
$30 BILLION, INCLUDING
SIGNIFICANT CUTS TO CALWORKS,
WHICH LED TO CALWORKS GRANT
LEVELS DROPPING TO HISTORIC LOWS
IN 2013, EXACERBATING DEEP
POVERTY, PARTICULARLY AMONG
YOUNG CHILDREN. THE RESEARCH
SHOWS THAT INCREASED POVERTY IS
CLOSELY LINKED TO INCREASED FOOD
INSECURITY, NEGATIVE HEALTH
OUTCOMES, CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS
AND CHILD WELFARE INVOLVEMENT.
ADDITIONALLY, CHILDREN RAISED IN
POVERTY ARE MORE LIKELY TO DROP
OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL AND LESS
LIKELY TO GET A COLLEGE DEGREE,
AS WELL AS EARN SUBSTANTIALLY
LESS AS ADULTS THAN THEIR PEERS
WITH HIGHER INCOMES, THEREFORE
REDUCING SUPPORT FOR LOW INCOME
CHILDREN DURING A TIME OF
ECONOMIC DISTRESS AND RISING
POVERTY COULD SIGNIFICANTLY
LIMIT CALIFORNIA'S FUTURE.
LASTLY I WANT TO REFLECT ON THE
LONG TUM EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
CALWORKS PROGRAM IN LIGHT OF
THESE CUTS. THESE CUTS REPRESENT
A STARK DEPARTURE FROM THE
PRINCIPLES OF A FAMILY FIRST
APPROACH TO CALWORKS THAT HAS
BEEN A PRIORITY FOR POLICYMAKERS
IN RECENT YEARS. CALWORKS LIKE
THE FEDERAL TANF PROGRAM, WAS
BORN AMIDST A PROBLEMATIC
DISCOURSE THAT NOT ALL FAMILIES
ARE DESERVING OF ASSISTANCE AND
MUST FOLLOW STRICT WORK
REQUIREMENTS TO EARN THEIR
BENEFITS. AT THE CORE OF THIS IS
THE IDEA OF SELF RESPONSIBILITY,
WHICH MINIMIZES THE SYSTEMIC
BARRIERS THAT AFFECT PROGRAM
PARTICIPANTS BY DIMINISHING
VITAL SUPPORT SERVICES AND
PRIORITIZING RAPIDLY MOVING
PARENTS INTO PAID EMPLOYMENT
OVER ADDRESSING SYSTEMIC
BARRIERS. THE PROPOSED CHANGES
UNDERMINE THE PROGRAM'S CAPACITY
TO PROMOTE LASTING ECONOMIC
STABILITY AND FAMILY WELL-BEING.
THE RESEARCH SUGGESTS THAT THE
WORK FIRST APPROACH PUSHES
PEOPLE INTO JOBS SIMILAR TO THE
ONES THAT THEY LOST LEADING UP
TO THEIR CALWORKS PARTICIPATION,
WHICH CREATES AN INEFFECTIVE
CYCLE OF MOVING PEOPLE BETWEEN
LOW WAGE, UNSTABLE EMPLOYMENT
AND BENEFITS. IN FACT, THERE'S
NO CLEAR LINK BETWEEN WORK
REQUIREMENTS AND REDUCTIONS IN
POVERTY. RATHER, THE RESEARCH
SUGGESTS THAT PROGRAMS SUPPORT
PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT TRAINING,
EDUCATION AND TREATMENT ARE MORE
SUCCESSFUL IN THE LONG RUN.
MOREOVER, IN HIS PROPOSED
BUDGET, THE GOVERNOR INDICATED
PLANS TO PURSUE PARTICIPATION IN
THE FEDERAL PILOT PROGRAM, WHICH
I KNOW WILL BE COVERED IN DETAIL
AT A LATER PANEL, BUT THIS IS
DESIGNED TO TEST ALTERNATIVE
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND MOVE
AWAY FROM EVALUATING CALWORKS
SUCCESS BASED ON WORK
PARTICIPATION ALONE. THE PILOT
PROGRAM WOULD EVALUATE PROGRAM
SUCCESS BASED ON INDICATORS OF
SUSTAINABLE EMPLOYMENT AND
FAMILY STABILITY. THEREFORE THE
PROPOSAL TO EFFECTIVELY
ELIMINATE THE FAMILY
STABILIZATION AND EXPANDED
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS
IS COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY TO
THE GOVERNOR'S GOAL OF PURSUING
THE FEDERAL OPPORTUNITY. GIVEN
THESE PROGRAMS ALIGNMENT WITH
THE PILOT'S TARGET METRICS, THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS FINALLY
RECOGNIZING THE INEFFECTIVENESS
OF A WORK FIRST APPROACH.
THEREFORE, CALIFORNIA SHOULD
CONTINUE TO LEAD THE WAY RATHER
THAN TAKE A STEP BACKWARD IN
CREATING A MORE FAMILY CENTERED
CALWORKS PROGRAM. BY FOCUSING ON
ELIMINATING EMPLOYMENT BARRIERS
SO THAT FAMILIES CAN FEEL FULLY
SUPPORTED AND BE ABLE TO THRIVE
BY STRENGTHENING PROGRAMS LIKE
THE FAMILY STABILIZATION
PROGRAM, POLICY MAKERS CAN
ENSURE THE STATE NOT ONLY HAS A
SUCCESSFUL PILOT APPLICATION,
BUT CAN DEMONSTRATE TO THE
NATION WHAT PROGRESS IN REAL
FAMILY OUTCOMES AND PATHWAYS OUT
OF POVERTY LOOKS LIKE.
CALIFORNIA IS A STATEMENT OF OUR
VALUES AND PRIORITIES. AS YOU
HAVE MENTIONED IN BUDGET,
SOLUTIONS SHOULD NOT COME AT THE
EXPENSE OF FAMILIES WITH THE
GREATEST NEEDS. INSTEAD, IT
SHOULD REFLECT A COMMITMENT TO
PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
EVERYONE IN OUR STATE TO SHARE
IN CALIFORNIA'S WEALTH. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
DIRECTOR, I HAVE A QUICK
QUESTION FOR YOU. I FORGOT TO
ASK. CAN YOU CLARIFY IN YOUR
TALKING POINTS, YOU TALKED ABOUT
, THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE A
WAY THAT COUNTIES CAN STILL FUND
THE SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT
PROGRAM. THE POINT BEING THAT
WITHIN THE SINGLE ALLOCATION,
RIGHT, EMPLOYMENT IS A COMPONENT
WITHIN IT. IF A COUNTY WANTED TO
USE SOME OF THOSE DOLLARS, THEY
COULD FOR THE PURPOSES OF
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT. IT MEANS
THEY WON'T DO SOMETHING ELSE.
MAYBE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE
OTHERWISE SPENT THE DOLLARS FOR.
BUT IT'S AN OPTION THAT THEY
COULD DO SINCE THERE'S A LOT OF
UNSPENT DOLLARS IN THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION, THERE'S ROOM FOR
THESE COUNTIES TO NOT SEND IT
BACK, RIGHT? THEY CAN JUST
REALLOCATE TO SOME OF THESE
PROGRAMS. THE SINGLE ALLOCATION
CONTINUES TO BE AVAILABLE AND
PART OF THE RESOURCE TO THEM. I
REFERENCED SOME OF THE REASONS
THAT WE'VE HEARD, AND I'M SURE
THERE'LL BE SOME PERSPECTIVES
SHARED IN TERMS OF WHY IT'S NOT
FULLY SPENT. BUT YES, THAT IS AN
ALLOCATION THAT IS APPROPRIATED
FOR THE PURPOSES OF EMPLOYMENT.
CAL LEARN AS WELL AS
ELIGIBILITY. OKAY. THANK YOU,
MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT, PANELIST
FROM THE COUNTY WOODFORD
DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION. HI AGAIN.
GOOD MORNING. EILEEN. NANCY WITH
THE COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS
ASSOCIATION, I'M GOING TO GO
THROUGH MY TESTIMONY, BUT I'M
HAPPY TO ADDRESS MORE SPECIFICS
ON SPENDING IN THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION AND SOME OF THESE
OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL START
BY SAYING THAT CALIFORNIA'S
CALWORKS PROGRAM LEADS THE
NATION AS A MODEL FOR HOW TO
LEVERAGE TANF TO NOT JUST
SUPPORT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN
DEEP POVERTY, BUT TO PROVIDE
THEM LASTING BENEFIT. OUR STATE
HAS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF
STEERING THE PROGRAM FROM ONE
THAT IS COMPLIANCE DRIVEN AND
SILOED TO ONE THAT IS MORE
ACCESSIBLE, SUPPORTIVE, AND
PERSON AND FAMILY CENTERED.
WE'VE EVOLVED THE CALWORKS
PROGRAM SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE
PAST DECADE OR MORE, TO BETTER
MEET THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN'S AND
FAMILIES, CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.
GUIDED BY TWO KEY EFFORTS TO
IMPROVE PRACTICE THE FIRST IS
ONE THAT WE CALL CALWORKS 2.0,
AND THIS WAS A COUNTY LED
PRACTICE REFORM. IT'S INFORMED
BY BIOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL
SCIENCE, WHICH ADOPTS A
BEHAVIORAL APPROACH TO HELP
FAMILIES SET INCREMENTAL,
ACHIEVABLE GOALS. AND THE SECOND
IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CAL,
OR WHICH IS A JOINT COUNTY AND
STATE EFFORT THAT CREATED
ADDITIONAL OUTCOME MEASURES TO
EVALUATE THE PROGRAM BEYOND THE
WORK PARTICIPATION RATE AND
TOGETHER, THESE TWO EFFORTS HAVE
DEPRIORITIZED THE FEDERAL WORK
PARTICIPATION RATE, EMPHASIZED A
COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AND
COUNTY STAFF, AND UTILIZED DATA
TO INFORM, ASSESS, AND IMPROVE
COUNTY PROGRESS. SUPPORTED BY
OTHER SERVICE OFFERINGS IN
CALWORKS SUCH AS FAMILY
STABILIZATION AND S, WE'VE
CONTINUED TO DEVELOP A ROBUST
FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAM TO
IMPROVE OVERALL FAMILY OUTCOMES.
THE PROPOSED CUTS IN THE BUDGET
TO CALWORKS WILL UNDO ALL OF
THIS PROGRESS THAT WE'VE MADE
OVER THE LAST DECADE. AT THE
CORE OF ALL THAT WE'VE TRIED TO
ACCOMPLISH IN TRANSFORMING THE
CULTURE OF THE CALWORKS PROGRAM
IS THE SINGLE ALLOCATION. THE
AGENDA DOES A GREAT JOB OF
SUMMARIZING WHAT IT IS AND
DIRECTOR JOHNSON HAS TALKED A
LOT ABOUT THE CUTS. WHAT I'LL
JUST SAY IS IT'S TRUE. WE'VE
UNDERSPENT THE SINGLE ALLOCATION
IN RECENT FISCAL YEARS, AND I'M
HAPPY TO GET INTO KIND OF THE
DYNAMIC THAT'S GONE ON THERE.
WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT WITH THESE
PROPOSED FUNDING REDUCTIONS,
CUTS THAT CUT TO THE BONE, BASED
ON OUR QUICK CALCULATIONS, IF
WE'RE LOOKING AT JUST THE RATES
OF SPENDING NOW, THE ELIGIBILITY
COMPONENT OF THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION OF THESE CUTS GO INTO
EFFECT WILL BE UNDERFUNDED
RELATIVE TO WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY
SPENDING BY OVER $340 MILLION,
THAT'S A 45% FUNDING SHORTFALL
FOR JUST THE ELIGIBILITY
COMPONENT. WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE
HAVE TO TAKE FUNDING FROM THE
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES COMPONENT
BECAUSE IT'S FUNGIBLE AND WE
HAVE TO COVER THAT FROM
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO COVER
THOSE MANDATED ELIGIBILITY
ACTIVITIES. WHEN YOU LAYER THE
CUTS THAT ARE ALSO PROPOSED TO
THE CALWORKS SINGLE ALLOCATION
AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, WHAT
WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT, BASED
ON CURRENT EXPENDITURE TRENDS IS
A YEAR OVER YEAR CUT TO WHAT
WE'RE SPENDING NOW OF $100
MILLION TOTAL IN THE OVERALL
SINGLE ALLOCATION. AND ALL OF
THAT, ALL OF THAT WILL HAVE TO
COME FROM EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO FUND THE
MANDATED ELIGIBILITY ACTIVITIES,
WHICH IN AND OF THEMSELVES ARE A
SERVICE. PROVIDING ACCESS TO
THIS PROGRAM IS A SERVICE THAT
WE PROVIDE, AND WE WANT TO DO IT
WELL AND QUICKLY. AND AND
APPROPRIATELY. SO ALL OF THAT
WILL COME FROM EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES. AND THAT'S SO WE'RE
TALKING ACTUAL CUTS. THIS IS
CONTINUATION DISCONTINUATION OF
SERVICES AND CONTRACTUAL
COMMITMENTS. AND IT'S NOT JUST
JOB SEARCH CLASSES OR RESUME
WRITING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
DISCONTINUING CREDIT RECOVERY
SERVICES, WHICH PLAY A PIVOTAL
ROLE IN FACILITATING ACCESS TO
HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT. WE'RE
TALKING CUTTING LEGAL SERVICES,
WHICH REMOVE BARRIERS TO
EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND CAREER
ADVANCEMENT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
CUTTING TANGIBLE SUPPORTS THAT
SUPPORT EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT
ATTAINMENT. AND WE'RE PROBABLY
ALSO WITH CUTS OF THAT
MAGNITUDE, LOOKING AT AT
MINIMALLY HIRING FREEZES IN
COUNTIES, IF NOT OUTRIGHT STAFF
REDUCTIONS, IF WE WERE TO JUST
TAKE $100 MILLION CUT, THROUGH
STAFF, WE WOULD HAVE TO
ELIMINATE 500 POSITIONS IN THE
CALWORKS PROGRAM STATEWIDE JUST
TO ACCOMMODATE $100 MILLION CUT.
SO THESE ARE THESE ARE ACTUAL
SIGNIFICANT CUTS TO CURRENT
LEVELS OF EXPENDITURE, NOT JUST
CUTS OF UNSPENT FUNDING, THE
OTHER TWO PROGRAMS I WON'T GET
INTO TOO MUCH BECAUSE OTHERS ARE
GOING TO DO A GREAT JOB AND
ALREADY HAVE OF TALKING TO THE
BENEFITS OF THOSE. BUT I DO WANT
TO SAY THAT THEY, THEY'RE NOT
JUST ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS THAT
ARE JUST NICE TO HAVE. THEY
REALLY DO ROUND OUT A CONTINUUM
OF SERVICES THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED
OVER TIME TO PROVIDE TO OUR
FAMILIES, AND THEY'RE KIND OF AT
OPPOSITE ENDS OF THAT, THAT
CONTINUUM, THE FAMILY
STABILIZATION PROGRAM ASSISTS
FAMILIES REQUIRING THOSE MORE
INTENSIVE NEEDS IF THEY'RE IN
CRISIS, IF THEY HAVE BARRIERS,
INTENSIVE BARRIERS, AND
UNIQUELY, THEY THEY ALLOW FOR
THE CHILD TO BE SERVED, TOO. AND
THAT'S REALLY CRITICAL IN TERMS
OF ADDRESSING FAMILY STABILITY,
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE CUTS TO THE,
SINGLE ALLOCATION AND THEN WE
LAYER ON TOP OF THAT, THE
WITHHOLDING OF THE FUNDING FOR
THE INTENSIVE CASE MANAGEMENT. I
MEAN, ALL OF THAT MONIES THAT WE
WOULD USE TO SUPPORT THOSE
INTENSIVE NEEDS THROUGH THE
SINGLE ALLOCATION, IT'S ALL
GONE. IT'S ALL GONE, AND SO ALL
OF THOSE ARE ABILITY TO HELP.
THOSE MOST INTENSIVE CASES ARE
JUST DECIMATED. AND, OUR
FAMILIES HAVE MANY STRENGTHS,
BUT THEY OFTEN FACE EDUCATIONAL
AND WORK EXPERIENCE BARRIERS AND
THEY FACE SYSTEMIC RACISM THAT
MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO FIND JOBS.
AND WHEN YOU LAYER THE LACK OF
ACCESS OF THOSE JOB
OPPORTUNITIES AND NOT HAVING
THOSE PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT
NETWORKS ON TOP OF ALL OF THE
OTHER EDUCATION LEVEL AND
EXPERIENCE BARRIERS THAT THEY
HAVE, IT CREATES AN ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE HURDLE FOR THEM TO
SECURE A JOB THAT IS, THAT IS
GOING TO BE MEANINGFUL AND
PROVIDE LASTING ECONOMIC
SUPPORT, AND THAT'S WHERE IS
COMES IN. SO IT'S KIND OF AT
THAT OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM,
WHEN A FAMILY IS OUT OF CRISIS,
WHEN THEY'VE GOT ENOUGH SERVICES
AND SUPPORTS AND STABILIZATION
AND THEY CAN THEY CAN ACTUALLY
MOVE TO FINDING A MEANINGFUL
JOB. S PROGRAM HELPS IN THAT BY
PROVIDING THOSE CRUCIAL TRAINING
SKILLS AND CONNECTIONS TO LOCAL
EMPLOYERS WITHOUT THE WAGE,
SORRY, WITHOUT THE WAGE SUBSIDY,
WE JUST FIND THAT IT'S DIFFICULT
TO PLACE OUR CLIENTS IN
MEANINGFUL JOBS. SO I'LL JUST
SAY IN CONCLUSION, WE HAVE ALL
WORKED THE COUNTIES, THE
ADMINISTRATION, THE LEGISLATURE
TO REALLY TRANSFORM THIS PROGRAM
TO BE A FAMILY CENTERED SUPPORT
PROGRAM, ONE THAT MITIGATES THE
MOST TOXIC EFFECTS OF DEEP
POVERTY. AND ALL OF THESE CUTS
AT THIS POINT, JUST COMPLETELY
UNDO ALL THAT WORK AND ARE
REALLY DEVASTATING FOR THE
CALWORKS PROGRAM. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, IF HYPOTHETICAL, IF
THERE WERE NO CUTS TO ANY OF THE
CALWORKS PROGRAMS AND JUST THE
SINGLE ALLOCATION ONGOING, WOULD
THAT BE MORE DIGESTIBLE BECAUSE
YOU'D BE ABLE TO HAVE YOU
WOULDN'T HAVE TO OFFSET ANYTHING
, WE WOULD STILL MILLION DOLLARS
ON THE TABLE ONGOING. CORRECT.
SO IF THE PROGRAM FUNDING FOR
THE TWO PIECES WERE LEFT SC AND
FAMILY STABILIZATION AND THE
CUTS TO THE SINGLE THEMSELVES
JUST WENT INTO EFFECT, WE WOULD
STILL HAVE THE ISSUE OF HAVING
TO YEAR OVER YEAR CUT ABOUT $100
MILLION OUT OF OUR CURRENT
EXPENDITURES FROM THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION. SO THERE'S UNSPENT
OF AVERAGE $300 MILLION A YEAR,
THE, THE, THE UNDERSPENDING IS,
I THINK, MORE A FUNCTION OF THE
INTERACTION BETWEEN THE BUDGET
METHODOLOGY AND THE WAY THAT
THAT WORKS AND THE DIFFICULTY IN
MAKING REALLY ACCURATE CASELOAD
PROJECTIONS IN THE PANDEMIC.
STILL UNSPENT, THOUGH, RIGHT?
WELL IT WAS, BUT WE HAVE OVER
TIME, AS THE PANDEMIC HAS ENDED,
BEEN GRADUALLY RATCHETING DOWN
FOR CASELOAD ADJUSTMENTS, THE
FUNDING THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED
OVER TIME TO THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION. SO NOW BETWEEN THE
NORMAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
DOWNWARD TO THE SINGLE TO
REFLECT THE UPDATED CASELOAD
PROJECTIONS THAT HAVE MORE
NORMALIZED NOW THAT WE'RE OUT OF
THE PANDEMIC AND THE CUTS ON TOP
OF IT, THAT'S WHAT'S LEADING TO
NOW A BETTER A MORE RIGHT SIZING
OF THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT'S
BUDGETED AND THE AMOUNT THAT WE
ACTUALLY NEED AND ARE SPENDING
TO SUPPORT THE PROGRAM AS
REQUIRED. SO WE WERE OVER FUNDED
ESSENTIALLY IN THE PAST.
SOPHIE'S CHOICE, I MEAN, WE HAVE
TO DO SOME RIGHT. WE HAVE TO DO
SOME CUTS. I'M NOT HERE TO SAY
WE'RE GOING TO I MEAN, OF
COURSE, IDEALLY, BUT WE HAVE TO.
WHAT WOULD YOU PRIORITIZE? WHAT
WOULD I PRIORITIZE AS IT IS A
SOPHIE'S CHOICE, THE NICE THING
ABOUT THE SINGLE ALLOCATION IS
IT IS MORE FLEXIBLE. IT DOES
ALLOW US TO SERVE MORE FAMILIES.
FAMILY STABILIZATION, THÀNH AND
S ARE TARGETED PROGRAMS, BUT
THERE'S JUST SUCH CRITICAL,
FLEXIBLE PROGRAMS THAT ARE JUST
SO DYNAMIC FOR US IN RESPONDING
TO NEEDS THAT, THAT IT'S REALLY
IT'S UNIMAGINABLE TO THINK ABOUT
LOSING, LOSING THOSE RESOURCES.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO DO THE
EMPLOYMENT, THE ELIGIBILITY
WORK. IT'S REALLY IT'S
IMPOSSIBLE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
SUPPORTS THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE
TO ALL FAMILIES THROUGH
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES VERSUS
SUPPORTS THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE
TO THE HIGHEST NEEDS FAMILIES.
IT'S REALLY IT'S LIKE, THINK
ABOUT IT MORE. I'D LOVE TO HEAR
YOU AT THE END OF THE PANEL. I'D
LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU'D COME UP
WITH. OKAY, OKAY, OKAY. NOW
WE'RE GOING TO TURN TO A MEMBER
FROM SEIU 521, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
FAMILY STABILIZATION OAN. HI,
BARRY. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
BARRY DOMER, AND I'M THE
SUPERVISOR OF THE SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY FAMILY STABILIZATION
PROGRAM WITH CAL WORKS. I HAVE
BEEN A SOCIAL WORKER IN SANTA
CRUZ COUNTY FOR OVER 20 YEARS,
AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE SEIU 521
UNION. AND I HAVE A PREPARED
STATEMENT TO SHARE WITH YOU THIS
MORNING THAT WILL TAKE ABOUT
FIVE MINUTES. I'M HERE ON BEHALF
OF MY TEAM AND THE FAMILIES WE
SERVE TO VOICE OUR STRONG
OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED
ELIMINATION OF THE FAMILY
STABILIZATION PROGRAM. WE ARE
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
DESTABILIZING IMPACT THAT
ELIMINATING THIS PROGRAM COULD
HAVE ON TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
PARENTS AND CHILDREN ACROSS
CALIFORNIA, WHICH MAY ALSO
INADVERTENTLY INCREASE BURDENS
AND COSTS TO THE STATE. I'D LIKE
TO SHARE A BIT ABOUT OUR FAMILY
STABILIZATION PROGRAMS WORK IN
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY. WE ARE A TEAM
OF EXPERIENCED SOCIAL WORKERS
WHO SERVE VULNERABLE FAMILIES
WITH CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY
AND EXPERIENCING CRISIS. AS WE
PROVIDE INTENSIVE ASSESSMENT,
CRISIS INTERVENTION AND CASE
MANAGEMENT. WE ARE ALL
CLINICALLY TRAINED IN TRAUMA AND
COMPLEX, IN TREATING TRAUMA AND
COMPLEX HUMAN HUMAN BEHAVIORAL
ISSUES, AND ARE OFTEN THE ONLY
FORM OF INTENSIVE AND
COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR THE
FAMILIES WITH WHOM WE WORK. THE
FAMILIES WE SERVE DO NOT
EXPERIENCE CRISIS AS A SINGULAR
ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE SUPPORT WE
PROVIDE THEM IS DYNAMIC AND
MULTIFACETED. WE WORK WITH
FAMILIES EXPERIENCING MANY
COMPLEX ISSUES AT ONCE. WE HELP
TO HOUSE HOMELESS FAMILIES. WE
TREAT THOSE SUFFERING FROM
TRAUMA AND OTHER MENTAL HEALTH
ISSUES. WE INCREASE SAFETY FOR
THOSE EXPERIENCING DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND WE ASSIST THOSE
WITH SEVERE ADDICTION TO ENGAGE
IN TREATMENT. WE CREATE
OPPORTUNITY FOR POSITIVE CHANGE
THROUGH THE CLOSE PROFESSIONAL
RELATIONSHIPS THAT WE BUILD WITH
OUR CLIENTS, AND IN STABILIZING
FAMILIES, WE INCREASE JOB
READINESS, EMPLOYMENT, AND
FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY WITHIN
OUR COMMUNITY. IF FAMILY
STABILIZATION IS ELIMINATED, WE
PREDICT THAT CALIFORNIA COUNTIES
WILL EXPERIENCE THE FOLLOWING
NEGATIVE IMPACTS. INCREASED
HOMELESSNESS, INCREASED MENTAL
HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE CRISIS.
INCREASED NUMBERS OF VICTIMS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WHO ARE NOT
GETTING HELP. INCREASED
REFERRALS TO CHILD WELFARE, AND
INCREASED RELIANCE AND TIME
SPENT ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS LOSS WOULD
INCREASE DEPENDANCE AND STRAIN
ON LOCAL SAFETY NET SERVICES
SUCH AS EMERGENCY ROOMS,
PSYCHIATRIC FACILITIES, LAW
ENFORCEMENT, AND LEGAL SYSTEMS.
OUR WORK IS HEAVILY FOCUSED ON
PREVENTION, AND IT SERVES TO
OFFSET THE COSTS THAT THE STATE
AND COUNTIES WOULD OTHERWISE
INCUR. GOVERNOR NEWSOM HAS
SHARED HIS GOAL OF ADDRESSING
CALIFORNIA'S HUMANITARIAN CRISIS
BY CREATING NEW SERVICES FOR
HOMELESS MENTALLY ILL AND
ADDICTED CITIZENS. WE APPLAUD
THIS GOAL, BUT PLEASE NOTE THAT
FAMILY STABILIZATION IS A HIGHLY
EFFECTIVE, PROVEN PROGRAM THAT
IS ALREADY SERVING AT RISK
FAMILIES TODAY. IN THIS MOMENT.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, A
ELIMINATING FAMILY STABILIZATION
WOULD BE A CONSIDERABLE SETBACK
TO ACHIEVING THE GOVERNOR'S
CRITICAL GOAL. I'D LIKE TO SHARE
A BRIEF EXAMPLE OF OUR WORK WITH
YOU. I'VE CHANGED A FEW OF THE
IDENTIFYING DETAILS TO PRESERVE
THIS FAMILY'S CONFIDENTIALITY.
LAST YEAR, OUR TEAM WORKED WITH
A SINGLE FATHER WHO WAS HOMELESS
AND SLEEPING IN HIS CAR WITH HIS
TWO YOUNG DAUGHTERS. DESPITE HIS
BEST EFFORTS TO QUIT, THIS, DAD
WAS ADDICTED TO TWO DESTRUCTIVE
ILLICIT DRUGS. DUE TO THE
PROFOUND STRESS OF THE
SITUATION, HE WAS EXPERIENCING
DEEP DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, AND
SUICIDAL THOUGHTS. ONE OF OUR
FAMILY STABILIZED THÀNH SOCIAL
WORKERS WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH
THE FAMILY AND SUPPORTED THIS
FATHER TO ENTER A RESIDENTIAL
SUBSTANCE USE AND MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT PROGRAM. HE IS NOW
CLEAN AND SOBER AND HIS MENTAL
HEALTH IS STABLE. THIS FATHER
HAD EXTENSIVE TATTOOS ON HIS
NECK AND FACE AND DUE TO HIS
SUBSTANCE USE, HE HAD LOST
SEVERAL OF HIS FRONT TEETH AS
YOU ALL CAN PROBABLY IMAGINE,
HIS APPEARANCE MADE IT NEARLY
IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO BECOME
EMPLOYED. HIS FAMILY
STABILIZATION SOCIAL WORKER WAS
ABLE TO HELP HIM GET HIS TATTOOS
REMOVED, AND HIS MISSING TEETH
REPLACED. THE SOCIAL WORKER
HELPED THIS FAMILY TO GET INTO
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, AND THIS
FATHER IS NOW WORKING WITH ONE
OF OUR CALWORKS SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS AND IS
PAYING HIS OWN RENT AND BILLS.
HE RECENTLY SHARED WITH HIS
FAMILY STABILIZATION SOCIAL
WORKER THAT HE NOW FEELS LIKE A
GOOD FATHER. HE STATED THAT
RATHER THAN FEELING ASHAMED AS
HE PREVIOUSLY DID, HE FEELS
PROUD OF HIS LIFE. THIS IS JUST
ONE OF HUNDREDS OF SUCCESS
STORIES THAT WE ARE HONORED TO
BE A PART OF IN SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY EVERY YEAR. IN CLOSING,
WE RESPECTFULLY URGE EACH OF YOU
TO CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES IF
THIS PROGRAM IS CUT. WE
SINCERELY BELIEVE IT WOULD BE A
STEP BACKWARDS FROM MEETING THE
NEEDS OF THE STATE'S MOST
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. THANK
YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR
OUR CONCERNS. WE VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE YOUR SHARE. SHARED
COMMITMENT TO THE WELL-BEING OF
CHILDREN AND PARENTS IN OUR
STATE. THANK YOU BARRY.
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. THANK
YOU. WE'RE GOING TO TURN NOW TO
A PARENT VOICES REPRESENTATIVE
FROM SAN DIEGO COUNTY, BRIANNA.
COUNTY I'M SO SORRY. CONTRA
COSTA FINE. IT'S ALL THE SAME.
HI. MY NAME IS BRIANNA BURKS.
I'M A LEADER WITH PARENT VOICES.
CONTRA COSTA. I'M A MOM OF FOUR.
DE NIRO, 16, EMILIANA, 11,
DERRICK JUNIOR, TEN. MY
YOUNGEST, JACOB, IS FIVE. I'M
HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE
FAMILY STABILIZATION PROGRAM,
HOW THE FAMILY STABILIZATION
PROGRAM HELPED ME, AND WHY I
WANT TO PROTECT IT FOR THE
MOTHERS, FOR THE MOTHERS WHO
COME AFTER ME. I'VE BEEN ON
CALWORKS SINCE I WAS 17 YEARS
OLD. I WAS I WAS NEVER SET UP TO
SUCCEED. WHEN I WAS GETTING
CALWORKS, IT WAS JUST THE CASH
AID AND THAT'S IT. NO ONE HAS
EVER OFFERED ME CHILDCARE. NOT
ONCE. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW. YOU
CAN GET CHILDCARE ON CALWORKS
UNTIL RECENTLY. NO ONE HAS EVER
ASKED ME MY CAREER GOALS. THE
FIRST TIME I GOT OFF CALWORKS,
IT WAS AFTER A FRIEND OF MINE
TOLD ME WE SHOULD GET OUR CNA
LICENSE. I DID ALL THAT ON MY
OWN FOR THE AND FOR THE WELFARE
TO WORK. ALL THEY WANTED US TO
DO WAS TO GO TO THE CAREER
CENTER, MAKE RESUMES AND I
DIDN'T GET A JOB FROM DOING
THAT. WHEN I TOLD THEM I WANTED
TO GET MY CNA, CNA LICENSE, THEY
TOLD ME GOOD FOR ME, GOOD,
THAT'S GOOD FOR ME. BUT WHEN I
ASKED IF THEY COULD PAY FOR IT
FOR THE PROGRAM, THEY SAID NO,
THEY COULD ONLY PAY FOR BOOKS.
SO I FOUND A JOB AS A SECURITY
GUARD AGAIN BY MYSELF, WITH NO
HELP FROM THE COUNTY, AND SAVED
UP THE MONEY TO PUT MYSELF
THROUGH SCHOOL, BECOMING A CNA
WAS GREAT FOR ME. I ALWAYS
WANTED TO WORK IN THE MEDICAL
FIELD. WE WERE RAISED AROUND MY
GRANDPARENTS. A LOT OF OLD
PEOPLE, MY NANA AND PAPA AND MY
GREAT GRANDMOTHER WHO PASSED
AWAY SIX YEARS AGO. SO FROM
THAT, FROM THE TIME I WAS A
BABY, WE WERE ALWAYS WE WERE
ALWAYS AROUND OLD PEOPLE. SO NO
DISRESPECT, NO DISRESPECT. WE'RE
ALWAYS AROUND ELDERS. I ALWAYS
FELT SORRY. I ALWAYS FELT THE
NEED TO BE A CARETAKER AND TO BE
COMPASSIONATE AND TO BE TO BE
THERE BECAUSE OF BECAUSE A LOT
OF THE OLDER PEOPLE WHO DON'T,
WHO DON'T HAVE THAT, A LOT OF
PEOPLE IN THE A LOT OF OLDER
PEOPLE IN THE FACILITIES, THEY
DON'T HAVE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY
CARE FOR THEM AND ACTUALLY WANT
TO HELP THEM, AND THEY CAN BE
THEY CAN BE ALONE SOMETIMES WHEN
ME AND MY LITTLE SISTER WERE
YOUNGER, WE USED TO PLAY
DOCTORS. WE USED TO WE USED TO
DO SURGERIES ON OUR TEDDY BEARS.
I WOULD BE THE SURGEON AND SHE
WOULD BE THE ASSISTANT. WE WOULD
CUT THE TEDDY BEARS OPEN, PUT
LOTION AND STUFF AND SEW THEM
BACK UP. AND SO IT WAS LIKE IT
ALWAYS LIKE ME WORKING IN THE
MEDICAL FIELD AT ALL, BECAUSE MY
MOM TOLD ME VICKS FIXES VICKS.
OKAY. NO, JUST LOTION. IT ALWAYS
STUCK WITH ME. AND THAT'S WHAT I
WANTED. I ALWAYS WANTED TO BE IN
THE MEDICAL FIELD. I WORKED AS A
CNA FOR A FEW YEARS, BUT WHEN I
GOT PREGNANT WITH MY DAUGHTER, I
TOOK MATERNITY LEAVE. WHEN THAT
WAS OVER, I WENT BACK TO WORK
FOR A LITTLE BIT, AND SHORTLY
AFTER THAT I BECAME PREGNANT
WITH MY SON. SO FOR THE NEXT FEW
YEARS I DIDN'T WORK SO I COULD
STAY HOME WITH THEM. THAT'S WHEN
I WENT BACK ON CALWORKS. MOST
RECENTLY I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET
HELP PAYING. I WAS TRYING TO GET
HELP PAYING WITH MY RENT, I FELL
BEHIND, I ASKED FOR HOUSING
SUPPORT, GOT DENIED. YOU HAVE TO
BE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK. YOU
HAVE TO BE ON A CHOPPING BLOCK.
LIKE LITERALLY THIS CLOSE TO
BEING KICKED OUT BEFORE THEY
BEFORE THEY WANT TO HELP YOU.
BUT SOMETIMES WHEN YOU NEED HELP
YOU CAN'T GET A HOLD OF YOU
CAN'T GET A HOLD OF YOUR WORKER
OR ANYONE OR NO ONE WILL RETURN
YOUR CALL IF THEY'RE IF THEY'RE
DOING ME LIKE THIS, HOW MANY
OTHER FAMILIES ARE THEY DOING
LIKE THIS? I HAVE TO CALL AND
CALL AND CALL. AND SOMETIMES I
DON'T GET A CALL BACK. FOR
WEEKS. I'VE BEEN WORKING AT A
JOB. I'VE BEEN WORKING AT A JOB
AT LAGUNA HONDA HOSPITAL IN SAN
FRANCISCO AS A CNA, COMMUTING
FOR COMMUTING FOUR HOURS A DAY.
I WAKE UP EVERY. I WOULD WAKE UP
EVERY MORNING AT 350 TO BE ON
THE TRAIN BY 5 A.M, THEN COME
BACK HOME, COOK, CLEAN AND TAKE
CARE OF MY KIDS AND TRY TO GET
THROUGH TO FOUR HOURS OF SLEEP
AT NIGHT. BECAUSE OF THE STRESS
OF NEEDING TO PAY MY RENT, I
THOUGHT THIS JOB WAS THE ONLY
CHOICE I HAD TO MAKE ENDS MEET.
I'M BARELY ABLE TO SEE MY KIDS.
I'M CONSTANTLY EXHAUSTED, AND
I'M. AND I'M STILL FALLING
BEHIND. NOW THAT I'M PART OF
PARENT VOICES AND HAVE STARTED
MEETING PEOPLE AND LEARNING MORE
ABOUT THE SYSTEM, I KNOW, I KNOW
A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT TO DO NOW.
I HAVE MY SISTER ON THE PHONE
WITH ME LAST TIME WHEN I WAS
TRYING TO GET HELP PAYING MY
RENT, I CALLED AND, AND SHE SAID
, OH, AND THIS, THIS IS, THIS IS
THE AT THE POINT WHERE THEY WERE
TRYING TO DENY ME. AND SO MY
SISTER CHIMED IN AND WAS LIKE,
WELL, WE SPOKE WITH DIRECTOR KIM
JOHNSON WITH DIRECTOR KIM
JOHNSON AND, AND THAT YOU GUYS
ARE SUPPOSED TO HELP FAMILIES
WHEN THEY NEED HELP BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, WHEN THEY NEED HELP, WHEN
THEY FALL BEHIND IN RENT. SO THE
WORKER PUT US ON HOLD AND HE
SAID, LET ME HOLD ON. LET ME
TALK TO MY SUPERVISOR. THE VERY
NEXT DAY, I GOT A CALL FROM THE
WORKER AT THE COUNTY, WHO TOLD
ME I QUALIFY FOR FAMILY
STABILIZATION PROGRAM. THEY
HELPED ME PAY MY RENT, MY RENT,
MY BACK RENT FROM JANUARY,
FEBRUARY AND MARCH. WHEN I GOT
THE PHONE CALL, I LITERALLY FELL
TO MY KNEES. ME AND MY KIDS JUST
GOT DONE BEING HOMELESS. WE WERE
MOVING FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE. MY
KIDS GOT SPLIT UP. WE WERE WE'RE
MOVING AROUND EVERYWHERE. IT DID
A LOT TO ME. IT DID A LOT TO MY
KIDS. MY OLDEST SON, DE NIRO,
HAS ALOPECIA, AND HE COMPLETELY
WENT BALD FROM EVERYTHING THAT
WE WERE GOING THROUGH. I FIGHT
VERY HARD FOR MY CHILDREN, FOR
MY FOR MY CHILDREN. BASED ON
WHAT I WENT THROUGH GROWING UP,
I REFUSED TO GO BACK TO
HOMELESSNESS. SO WHEN THEY TOLD
ME THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HELP
ME PAY THOSE THREE MONTHS, I
LITERALLY CRIED. THE FAMILY
STABILIZATION PROGRAM COMPLETELY
CHANGED MY LIFE. INSTEAD OF
SPENDING, INSTEAD OF SPENDING
FOUR HOURS A DAY ON THE TRAIN,
SLEEPING THREE HOURS A NIGHT AND
WAKING UP AND LEAVING BEFORE
LEAVING, LEAVING BEFORE WORK
WITHOUT SEEING MY KIDS, I'VE
BEEN ABLE TO FIND A JOB 20
MINUTES AWAY. I'M WORKING
NIGHTS, SO I CAN BE THERE FOR MY
KIDS, AND NOW I CAN. I CAN GET
SOME REAL SLEEP. I JUST WANT TO
GET STABILITY AND BALANCE FOR
MYSELF AND MY CHILDREN AND GO
BACK TO SCHOOL AND BETTER
MYSELF. SO I CAN FIND A LONG
TERME JOB. I'VE CONSIDERED
PHLEBOTOMY, BUT MY DREAMS IS
REALLY TO BE A NURSE. AS A NURSE
, I WANT AN EDUCATION, I WANT A
JOB, I WANT A CAREER. BUT IF THE
PROGRAMS, IF PROGRAMS LIKE THE
FAMILY STABILIZATION PROGRAM ARE
ELIMINATED, I CAN DO THAT, THE
GOVERNOR SHOULD NOT PROPOSE
CUTTING CUTTING US IN THIS IN
THIS PROGRAM. FIRST, MAKE SURE
YOU HAVE A YOU YOU MAKE SURE YOU
HAVE ASSESS ALL OTHER
POSSIBILITIES. IF I WAS
GOVERNOR, INSTEAD OF CUTTING
BILLIONS OF PROGRAMS THAT THAT
HELP CHILDREN, THAT HELP OUR
FUTURE, I WOULD LOOK AT OTHER
SOLUTIONS. LIKE I'VE LEARNED
THAT THE YACHT OWNERS WHO GET A
HUGE TAX BREAK, IF THEY CAN
AFFORD A YACHT, THEN THEY CAN
AFFORD TO PAY TAXES, TOO, I GOT
BRIANNA. I GOT FOUR KIDS. ONE OF
THEM MIGHT NEED THIS HELP ONE
DAY. OUR FUTURE GENERATION, OUR
GRANDKIDS, SOMEBODY ELSE DOWN
THE LINE IS GOING TO NEED HELP.
AND I JUST WANT TO. I JUST WANT
IT TO BE EASIER FOR THEM. WE
NEED TO STOP THIS SO OUR FUTURE
WON'T BE DISCOURAGED WHEN IT'S
TIME TO ASK FOR HELP. IT'S. IT'S
EASY TO STEAL. IT'S EASY TO ROB.
IT'S EASY TO SELL DRUGS. BUT
WHEN IT'S TIME TO GET ON YOUR
FEET AND DO IT, THE RIGHT WAY,
YOU. SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO
HELP. NOW WHEN THEY NOW WHEN
THEY GET A FELONY. BRIANNA, I
GOT TO CUT YOU OFF. OKAY? OKAY
THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY, OKAY. I
AGREE WITH YOU ON THE YACHT
OWNERS. OKAY AND I ALSO
RECOMMEND PHLEBOTOMY. OKAY. A
LOT OF FUN. OKAY. IT IS. YES.
THAT'S MY NEXT STEP, THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR REMARKS
WITH US. AND I HOPE TO SEE YOU
ON A BALLOT RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR
ONE DAY, TOO. OKAY, OKAY. WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE ON TO WESTERN
CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY. HI,
REBECCA. OH, I DON'T THINK IT'S
ON. OH THERE WE GO. THERE WE GO.
IS THAT WORKING? OKAY, I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR THIS HEARING. THE
IN DEPTH ATTENTION TO THE
CALWORKS PROGRAM, FIRST, A
LITTLE BACKGROUND. CALWORKS
PROVIDES LIFE SAVING CASH AID
AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES TO OVER
650,000 CHILDREN LIVING IN
350,000 FAMILIES, WHICH ARE
OVERWHELMINGLY LED BY WOMEN, 90%
WITH A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF
FAMILIES BEING LATINX AT NEARLY
60% AND BLACK AT 17. THESE
FAMILIES FACE HUGE BARRIERS SUCH
AS RACIAL AND ETHNIC
DISCRIMINATION AND SYSTEMIC
BARRIERS TO ECONOMIC PROSPERITY.
THE CALWORKS PROGRAM IS A
PRODUCT OF FEDERAL LAW THAT IS
PREMISED ON RACIST AND SEXIST
STEREOTYPES OF POOR PEOPLE,
ESPECIALLY BLACK WOMEN, AS
UNABLE TO MANAGE THEIR LIVES AND
WHO NEED GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT TO
ACCESS CASH ASSISTANCE. AS THE
PROGRAM HAS EVOLVED, SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES HAVE BECOME ESSENTIAL
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE CALWORKS
FAMILIES THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO
BECOME ECONOMICALLY
SELF-SUFFICIENT, FIRST I WANT TO
TALK ABOUT THE CUTS TO THE
SAFETY NET PROGRAM, AND I AGREE
WITH THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE.
IT'S A DOUBLE CUT TO CALWORKS
PROGRAM. NOT ONLY ARE WE
PROPOSING $300 MILLION IN
PERMANENT CUTS TO SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES, BUT THAT 900 MILLION
THAT'S BEING COMPLETELY DRAINED
FROM THE SAFETY NET RESERVE,
WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT
CALWORKS AND MEDI-CAL IN THE
EVENT OF AN ECONOMIC ECONOMIC
DOWNTURN, IS ALSO BEING CUT, AS
NOTED BY THE LAO, THIS USE OF
THE SAFETY NET RESERVE DOES NOT
SEEM TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
LEGISLATIVE INTENT, SINCE THE
RESERVE WILL NOT BE USED TO
PROTECT THE PROGRAMS. THE FIRST
PROGRAMMATIC CUT I'LL DISCUSS IS
FAMILY STABILIZATION. THIS
PROGRAM SUPPORTS FAMILIES IN
CRISIS AND ITS ELIMINATION WOULD
REMOVE Kò AID WHEN FAMILIES ARE
MOST IN NEED, ELIMINATING THIS
PROGRAM FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE
BARRIERS LOW INCOME PEOPLE FACE
BARRIERS SUCH AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OPTIONS, MENTAL HEALTH
CHALLENGES, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SITUATIONS, ALL WHICH THREATEN
THE STABILITY OF A FAMILY.
WITHOUT THESE SERVICES, THERE
CAN BE A HOST OF NEGATIVE
OUTCOMES, WITH HOMELESSNESS
BEING ONE REFLECTING THE STATE'S
OWN HOUSELESSNESS CRISIS, THIS
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE HAS GROWN TO
BE THE LARGEST EXPENDITURE
WITHIN THE PROGRAM, ACCOUNTING
FOR OVER 30% OF THE COST. THE
PROGRAM PROVIDES RENTAL
ASSISTANCE, SECURITY DEPOSITS
AND PAYMENTS FOR HOTELS OR
ASSISTANCE PAYING UTILITY BILLS,
WHICH WILL KEEP FAMILIES HOUSED,
STAYING HOUSED MAKES IT EASIER
FOR A PERSON TO FIND, HOLD AND
RETAIN A JOB, AS WELL AS
PROVIDING A STABLE ENVIRONMENT
FOR THE FAMILY WHICH WILL HELP
CHILDREN SUCCEED IN SCHOOL.
STAYING HOUSED WILL ALSO HELP
THE MENTAL HEALTH OF EVERYONE IN
THE FAMILY BY PROVIDING A SAFE
AND SECURE ENVIRONMENT. SUPPORT
FOR MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGES
ALSO INCLUDES SERVICES FOR
SUBSTANCE USE AND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SERVICES CAN INCLUDE
GETTING PEOPLE TO A SAFE
LOCATION AND COUNSELING. BY
CONTRAST, CUTS HAVE HUMAN
CONSEQUENCES. PUSHING FAMILIES
PAST THE BRINK. THIS IS LIFE AND
DEATH AS WE SAW WITH THE TRAGIC
CHILD DEATH IN LA, WHERE JUST
LAST FALL, A BABY DIED AT A BUS
STOP NEAR LAX AFTER THE MOTHER
HAD MADE REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO
ACCESS AID SINCE SHE WAS
UNHOUSED. ALTHOUGH UNCLEAR
WHETHER THESE ATTEMPTS TO ACCESS
SERVICES INCLUDED ACCESS TO THIS
PARTICULAR PROGRAM, WE BELIEVE
THIS INFANT'S TRAGIC DEATH WAS
AVOIDABLE. AVOIDABLE. THESE CUTS
PULL THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER
THESE FAMILIES, WHICH CAN ALSO
CAUSE UNNECESSARY, UNNECESSARY
CHILD WELFARE CASES. IN FACT,
EVERY $1 IN TANF, THE FEDERAL
NAME FOR CALWORKS RECEIVED BY A
FAMILY SAVES $8 BY PREVENTING
INCREASES IN CHILD PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, WORSENED CHILD AND
PARENTS HEALTH AND REDUCTIONS IN
FUTURE EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND
EARNINGS. BECAUSE IT IS SO
EFFECTIVE AND ALREADY FULLY
EXPENDED, OUR REIMAGINED
REIMAGINE CALWORKS EFFORTS
TARGET FAMILY STABILIZATION AS A
PROGRAM, WE NEED TO STRENGTHEN,
NOT ELIMINATE. NEXT ON THE
CHOPPING BLOCK IS THE EXPANDED
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM,
WHICH PROVIDES A KEY PATHWAY OUT
OF POVERTY. THIS PROGRAM
PROVIDES WAGE REIMBURSEMENT TO
EMPLOYERS WHO OFFER ON THE JOB
TRAINING TO PARTICIPANTS FOR SIX
MONTHS TO A YEAR, AND THEN
PARTICIPANTS TRANSITION INTO
PERMANENT, UNSUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT. THIS PROGRAM ALLOWS
MANY PARENTS TO GET JOBS AT THE
COUNTY, GOOD UNION JOBS, AND
HELPS ACHIEVE POSITIVE PROGRAM
CULTURE. THINK OF THE POWERFUL
EFFECT OF HAVING YOUR WORKER AS
SOMEONE FORMERLY ASSISTED, WHO
HAS TRUE EMPATHY FOR YOUR
SITUATION AND CAN HELP YOU SEE
WHAT YOU COULD ACHIEVE.
ACCORDING TO THE LAO, IN 2023,
2022, 23, ABOUT 1240 INDIVIDUALS
PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROGRAM.
MONTHLY DATA FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION SHOWS A
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN
QUARTERLY INCOME AFTER EXITING
THE PROGRAM COMPARED TO INCOME
BEFORE ENTERING THE PROGRAM, AND
EVEN DURING THE PROGRAM, THIS IS
A VALUABLE PROGRAM WHICH
PROVIDES EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE
AND SHOULD BE RETAINED, BRIEFLY
ON THE NEXT COUPLE OF CUTS,
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INTENSIVE
CASE MANAGEMENT, WHICH PROVIDES
THAT ONE ON ONE ASSISTANCE,
ACCORDING TO THE ADMINISTRATION,
ABOUT 10% OF CALWORKS CASES HAVE
BEEN CONSIDERED INTENSIVE OF
CUTS TO THE NUMBER OF HOURS
ALLOWED FOR THIS ASSISTANCE WILL
REDUCE MUCH NEEDED SUPPORT FOR
THESE PARTICIPANTS. AND LASTLY,
ON THE CUTS TO THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION, WE ALIGN WITH OTHER
SPEAKERS ON THE NEED FOR ROBUST
SUPPORT FOR COUNTY
ADMINISTRATORS AND THEIR
UNIONIZED WORKFORCE. IT TOOK US
OVER A DECADE TO RECOVER FROM
THE HARMFUL CUTS, HARMFUL CUTS
TO SAFETY NET PROGRAMS DURING
THE GREAT RECESSION. WE
UNDERSTAND IT IS A BAD BUDGET
YEAR, BUT CUTS TO OUR MOST
VULNERABLE CALIFORNIANS SHOULD
BE OFF THE TABLE AS A BUDGET
SOLUTION. THESE CUTS RESULT IN
MORE COSTS, AS WE WILL HAVE MORE
FAMILIES ON THE STREET WHO ARE
FOOD INSECURE AND WITH UNMET
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH NEEDS. I DON'T
THINK THIS IS THE CALIFORNIA ANY
OF US WANTS TO SEE. SO WE ASK
YOU TO PLEASE RETAIN THESE VERY
IMPORTANT PROGRAMS. THANK YOU.
THANKS, REBECCA. SONIA. YES.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR AND SENATORS SONIA RUSSO
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE. I'M GOING TO TRY TO FACE
YOU ALL AS MUCH AS I CAN, BUT
BEAR WITH ME HERE ON THE END.
SO, AS MENTIONED, THE GOVERNOR
HAS PROPOSED ONGOING CALWORKS
REDUCTIONS TOTALING $293 MILLION
ACROSS THE FOUR COMPONENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. STARTING
FIRST WITH THE TWO PROPOSED
REDUCTIONS THAT ARE PROGRAMMATIC
IN NATURE. SO THAT'S THE FAMILY
STABILIZATION PROGRAM AND
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT. AS HAS
BEEN MENTIONED, THESE REDUCTIONS
WOULD BEGIN IN 2324 AND WOULD
ELIMINATE ALL FUNDING FOR BOTH
PROGRAMS. ONE QUICK NOTE YOU MAY
HEAR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
PHRASES TO NAME THE SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM. THEY ALL
MEAN THE SAME THING EXPANDED
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT AND
SUBSIDIZED SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT. WE ONLY HAVE ONE
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM IN
CALWORKS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S
CALLED EXPANDED, SO IN TERMS OF
OUR COMMENTS ON THESE PROPOSALS,
IN LIGHT OF THE VERY DIFFICULT
BUDGET SITUATION, WE RECOMMEND
THAT THE LEGISLATURE CONSIDER
HOW THE ELIMINATION OF BOTH OF
THESE PROGRAMS MAY OR MAY NOT
ALIGN WITH ITS OVERALL LONG
TERME GOALS FOR THE CALWORKS
PROGRAM, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED
BY OTHER PANELISTS, ELIMINATING
FAMILY STABILIZATION MAY
DISPROPORTIONATELY AND
NEGATIVELY IMPACT CALWORKS
FAMILIES THAT ARE EXPERIENCING
CRISIS SITUATIONS AND
ELIMINATING SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT MAY NEGATIVELY IMPACT
THE EARNINGS AND EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES THAT SOME CALWORKS
RECIPIENTS HAVE. WE WOULD ALSO
RECOMMEND THAT THE LEGISLATURE
EXERCISE CAUTION IN PLANNING FOR
CURRENT YEAR REDUCTIONS, AS HAS
BEEN MENTIONED, THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET PROPOSES REDUCING CURRENT
YEAR FUNDING FOR FAMILY
STABILIZATION AND SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT IN FULL. HOWEVER,
FAMILY STABILIZATION
SPECIFICALLY HAS BEEN FULLY
EXPANDED IN RECENT YEARS, AND
SINCE COUNTIES ARE ALREADY
SPENDING THIS CURRENT YEAR
FUNDING ON THE PROGRAM, THE
PROPOSED CURRENT YEAR REDUCTION
IS UNLIKELY TO MATERIALIZE IN
FULL IN CONTRAST, WHEN WE LOOK
AT LOOK AT SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT, HOWEVER, THIS
PROGRAM HAS BEEN UNDERSPENT IN
RECENT YEARS FOR EXAMPLE, IN
2223, ONLY ABOUT 900, EXCUSE ME,
90 MILLION OF 134 MILLION WAS
SPENT FOR SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT.
AND WHILE PARTICIPATION AND
SPENDING HAS BEEN RAMPING BACK
UP SINCE THE PANDEMIC, SOME
FUNDS MAY GO UNSPENT IN THE
CURRENT YEAR. SO THIS PROGRAM
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT COULD
PRESENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO
RIGHTSIZE FUNDING IN SOME WAY IF
THE LEGISLATURE DECIDES IT
DOESN'T WANT TO ELIMINATE
FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM IN ITS
ENTIRETY. SO TURNING NEXT TO THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED REDUCTIONS
TO THE SINGLE ALLOCATION, AS HAS
BEEN MENTIONED, THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION IS MADE UP OF FEDERAL
AND STATE FUNDS AND IS ALLOCATED
TO COUNTIES TO COVER
ADMINISTRATIVE AND ELIGIBILITY
ACTIVITIES, AS WELL AS
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AND A FEW
OTHER SMALL COMPONENTS OF THE
CALWORKS PROGRAM, BUT LARGELY
ABOUT ONE THIRD OF THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION IS ALLOCATED TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPONENT, AND
ABOUT TWO THIRDS IS ALLOCATED TO
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES. HOWEVER AS
MENTIONED, THESE ALLOCATIONS ARE
FUNGIBLE, SO COUNTIES CAN CHOOSE
TO USE THEIR EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
FUNDS TO COVER ADMINISTER
ACTIVITIES AND VICE VERSA, WHICH
IS SOMETHING THAT MANY PANELISTS
HAVE BROUGHT UP. THE SECOND
PROPOSAL IS, AS HAS BEEN
MENTIONED, TO HOLD THE CASE
MANAGEMENT INTENSIVE CASE
MANAGEMENT RATE THAT COUNTIES
RECEIVE WITHIN THAT EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES COMPONENT, FLAT YEAR
OVER YEAR, RATHER THAN
INCREASING THAT RATE AS HAS BEEN
PLANNED. SO THAT'S THE
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES COMPONENT
REDUCTION, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE
THIS ILLUSTRATED IN A FIGURE,
YOU CAN TURN TO PAGE 13 ON YOUR
AGENDA, WHERE THERE'S A COPY OF
A FIGURE THAT WE PREVIOUSLY
PUBLISHED, I FIND IT HELPFUL TO
JUST SEE IT AS A WHOLE COMPONENT
ALTOGETHER. SO SPEAKING ABOUT
OUR COMMENTS ON THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION REDUCTIONS PROPOSED
BY THE ADMINISTRATION, IT'S OUR
BELIEF THAT THE POTENTIAL
IMPACTS OF THESE PROPOSED
REDUCTIONS ARE NOT FULLY CLEAR
AT THIS TIME. AGAIN, AS HAS AS
HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED BY MY
COLLEAGUES, WHILE THE OVERALL
SINGLE ALLOCATION HAS BEEN
UNDERSPENT IN RECENT YEARS,
COUNTIES AGAIN, AS HAS BEEN
MENTIONED, CONSISTENTLY REPORT
USING THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
FUNDS TO COVER THOSE
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, REPORTING
THAT THE COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS
HAVE EXCEEDED WHAT'S BEING
PROVIDED IN THAT ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPONENT, SO WE WOULD THEREFORE
RECOMMEND THAT THE LEGISLATURE
CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE
IMPACTS OF THESE REDUCTIONS ON
THE PROVISION OF EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES AT LOCAL COUNTY LEVEL.
ALTHOUGH WE DON'T HAVE A GREAT
UNDERSTANDING OF AS, AS HAS BEEN
MENTIONED, IF COUNTIES COULD USE
SINGLE ALLOCATION FUNDS, TO
COVER THOSE COSTS. AND THEN
FINALLY TURNING TO THE PROPOSED
WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SAFETY NET
RESERVE, THIS $900 MILLION,
AGAIN, THIS IS THE FULL BALANCE,
THIS DOES APPEAR INCONSISTENT
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION'S
OVERALL PROPOSED APPROACH TO
USING RESERVES, SINCE THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS PROPOSED
WITHDRAWING ONLY HALF OF THE
BUDGET STABILIZATION ACCOUNTS.
BALANCE CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE
AS IS ALLOWED DURING A BUDGET
EMERGENCY AND THEN THE FULL
DISCRETIONARY BALANCE, WHEREAS
ITS PROPOSED THIS FULL
WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SAFETY NET
RESERVE. IN CLOSING, WE'D RAISE
FOR THE LEGISLATURE THAT THERE
ARE FEW PROGRAM AREAS ACROSS THE
BUDGET WHERE THE GOVERNOR HAS
PROPOSED ONGOING CUTS TO
ESTABLISH PROGRAMS LIKE WE SEE
HERE IN CALWORKS. AND YOU MAY
ALSO HEAR ABOUT SIMILAR
PROPOSALS WITHIN CHILD WELFARE.
SO THAT MAKES THESE PROPOSALS
FAIRLY UNIQUE IN THIS WAY.
HOWEVER, GIVEN THE DIFFICULT
BUDGET PROBLEM WE'RE FACING,
ONGOING REDUCTIONS WILL BE
NECESSARY SOMEWHERE IN THIS
BUDGET. SO FOR ANY PROPOSED
SOLUTIONS THAT THE LEGISLATURE
CHOOSES TO REJECT, IT WILL NEED
TO SOLVE FOR THAT PORTION OF THE
BUDGET PROBLEM ELSEWHERE. YEAH,
I'VE GOT IDEAS WHERE ELSE WE CAN
, QUESTION TO YOU, SONIA, DID I
HEAR CORRECTLY REGARDING THE
SAFETY NET RESERVE? 50% IS
ALLOWED IN STATUTE. WHAT DID YOU
. SO THAT IS FOR THE BUDGET
STABILIZATION ACCOUNT. THE OTHER
RESERVE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED
TO BE DRAWN DOWN. YES. SO 50% IS
BEING PROPOSED FROM THAT. YEAH.
GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH, OKAY,
LET'S START WITH SOME QUESTIONS.
FIRST LET ME START WITH TALKING
ABOUT, THE EMPLOYMENT SUBSIDY
PROGRAM, SUBSIDIZED SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM. I DON'T KNOW
WHO TO DIRECT THIS QUESTION TO.
MAYBE DIRECTOR, DO WE KNOW WHAT
TYPES OF JOBS WE ARE SUBSIDIZING
IN? SURE. I THANK FOR THE
QUESTION. IT'S A MIX OF,
EMPLOYERS THAT COUNTIES ARE
DEVELOPING THAT RELATIONSHIP
WITH LOCALLY. SO, SO IN SOME
CASES PRIVATE, SOME CASES
NONPROFIT, SOME CASES PUBLIC
AGENCY. YOU HEARD SOME OF THE
PANELISTS REFERENCE THAT, SOME
ARE WORKING DIRECTLY FOR THE
COUNTY, RIGHT. AND HAVE WORK
EXPERIENCE WITHIN THOSE OPTIONS.
SO IT IS A VARIETY. IT REALLY
DEPENDS ON THE COUNTY AND THE
KIND OF ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF
OPPORTUNITIES THAT THEY HAVE,
BUT YEAH, THAT THAT VARIES
AMONGST THAT. DIRECTOR. I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU'VE HEARD I'VE BEEN
HEARING FROM SOME ADVOCATES THAT
THERE WERE AT TIMES SOME
COUNTIES ARE SUBSIDIZING FAST
FOOD JOBS AND JOBS THAT REALLY
AREN'T INTENDED TO STABILIZE THE
FAMILY. LONG TERME. RIGHT. DO WE
HAVE ANY OVERSIGHT? DO WE
COLLECT ANY DATA FROM COUNTIES
ON WHICH PARTS OUR COUNTIES ARE
WHICH, EMPLOYMENT, EMPLOYER
COUNTIES ARE PARTNERING WITH?
THERE'S A GENERAL PLAN THAT
COUNTIES, SUBMIT TO THE
DEPARTMENT RELATED TO HOW
THEY'RE GOING TO UTILIZE THE
FUNDS AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO
ENGAGE. I WILL TELL YOU, PART OF
OUR EFFORTS AND, AND DIRECTOR
KABANSKY REFERENCED THIS IN A
FEW WAYS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS
IS TO GET AWAY FROM NOT JUST ANY
JOB, BUT JOBS THAT HAVE A CAREER
LADDER, JOBS THAT ARE GOING TO
ACTUALLY REACH THOSE ECONOMIC
MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES AND BEING
FOCUSED ON THAT. I THINK TO THE
CONVERSATION HERE AROUND
SUPPORTING FAMILIES THAT MAY
HAVE A HIGHER INTENSITY, NEED
AND LEVEL THAT ENTRY RIGHT. THE
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT IS USUALLY
AN ENTRY LEVEL EXPERIENCE. AND,
REALLY WANTING TO KIND OF GET AN
INDIVIDUAL FAMILIAR WITH KIND OF
THE ENVIRONMENT OF WORKING,
HAVING THAT KIND OF CONSISTENCY
IN EXPECTATION. SO THEY
CERTAINLY VARY. BUT I WILL SAY
THAT TYPICALLY IN SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT, IT'S GOING TO BE
MORE LIKELY TO BE MORE OF AN
ENTRY LEVEL COMPONENT. BUT
OVERARCHINGLY, IN TERMS OF THE
CAREER PATHWAYS THAT WE WANT TO
INCORPORATE AND HAVE BEEN
INCORPORATING, YOU HEARD ME
MENTION VERY, VERY BRIEFLY,
WORKFORCE INNOVATION OPPORTUNITY
ACT RIGHT OVER THE YEARS AS THAT
HAS THOSE OPPORTUNITIES HAVE
EXPANDED. WE'VE WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THAT A WELFARE TO WORK PLAN
COULD ACTUALLY MAP TO A CAREER
PATHWAY IN WIOA. AND AGAIN,
HAVING THOSE CAREER LADDER
OPPORTUNITIES, AS YOU HEARD, THE
PANELISTS HERE SPEAK ELOQUENTLY
TO CAREER HEALTH CARE PATHWAYS.
FOR EXAMPLE, HOW DO WE GET
PARTICIPANTS AND FAMILIES IN
CALWORKS ENGAGED IN THAT AND
HAVING ALL OF THE ENTRY LEVEL
REQUIREMENTS TO BE SUCCESSFUL?
SO MORE HOLISTICALLY, WE ARE
ABSOLUTELY COMMITTED TO HAVING
THAT BROADER ARRAY OF
OPPORTUNITIES, AGAIN, MEETING
THE NEEDS AND THE GOALS OF THE
FAMILY. YOU KNOW, MY REMARKS ARE
REGARDING A PROGRAM THAT'S BEING
PROPOSED TO BE CUT, BUT I
HOPEFULLY NOT. BUT I'M VERY MUCH
INTERESTED IN SEEING A LITTLE
BIT MORE OVERSIGHT FROM THE
DEPARTMENT ON WHO WE PARTNER
WITH, YOU KNOW, I THINK ALL AN
OVERARCHING THEME I'VE SEEN IN
MY LITTLE SHORT TIME HERE IS A
LOT OF MONEY GOES OUT. WE DON'T
KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING, OVERSIGHT
GUIDELINES ON WHO TO PARTNER
WITH, DATA THAT WE COLLECT ON
THAT JUST TO REALLY SEE ARE THE
DOLLARS THAT WE'RE INVESTING IN
HELPING. MAYBE THEN LATER WHEN
WE HAVE ANOTHER HOPEFULLY NEVER,
DEFICIT, WE CAN LOOK AT THE
EFFICACY OF THESE PROGRAMS AND
SEE, HEY, LOOK, THESE ARE THE
JOBS THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING.
YOU KNOW, I RECEIVED A LETTER
FROM AN ENTITY IN MY DISTRICT
FROM NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY WHERE THEY
HIRED A LOT OF THEIR A LOT OF
THE PEOPLE ON THE STABILIZATION,
ON THE SUBSIDIZED PROGRAM AND
THE STORIES WERE JUST WONDERFUL
INTAKE, PEER SUPPORT AND SO
FORTH. AND I'M JUST INTERESTED
IN ENSURING THAT WE'RE PUTTING
PEOPLE IN JOBS THAT HAVE A LOT
OF SUPER VALUE, AND THEY HAVE A
LADDER CAREER TO IT, MY SECOND
QUESTION IS, WHERE CAN WE FIND
DATA ON WHICH COUNTIES ARE FULLY
SPENDING THE SINGLE ALLOCATION
FUND, I BELIEVE WE CAN FOLLOW UP
WITH THAT INFORMATION TO THE
COMMITTEE. YES, ON COUNTY BY
COUNTY EXPENDITURE. OKAY AND
THEN I KNOW I'VE ASKED YOU, MISS
EILEEN, AND I'M INTERESTED IN
HEARING FROM THE OTHER PANELISTS
, WHICH ONES? YOU WE WOULD
PRIORITIZE. BUT FROM WHAT I'VE
HEARD SO FAR FROM SOME
STAKEHOLDERS AND THIS IS ALSO MY
PERSONAL OPINION AS WELL, IS I
PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO
PRIORITIZE THE FAMILY
STABILIZATION IN THE SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS OUT OF
THESE, OUT OF ALL THE PROPOSED
CUTS, I WOULD I WOULD, I WOULD
PUT THOSE HIGHER THAN EVERYTHING
ELSE. I'M WONDERING ALSO IF FOR
THE SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT
PROGRAM, WE COULD JUST FUND IT
AT A DIFFERENT PERCENTAGE, NOT
THE FULL RIGHT. I THINK EVEN THE
LAO MENTIONED THAT LAST TIME OR
A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, IT WAS AT
$90 MILLION, YOU KNOW, MATCHING
THAT JUST SO AT LEAST WE CAN
KEEP THE PROGRAM GOING A LITTLE
BIT FURTHER, I KNOW IT'S
UNDERUTILIZED, BUT A LOT OF THAT
CAME BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC. IT
WAS HARD FOR US TO PUT PEOPLE
INTO THOSE JOBS. DIFFICULT. THE
FAMILY STABILIZATION PROGRAM IS
OVER UTILIZED. THAT, IF I'M NOT
MISTAKEN, COUNTIES DIP INTO YOUR
OTHER FUNDS JUST TO KEEP THAT
GOING BECAUSE IT'S SO FLEXIBLE
AND IT PUTS PEOPLE UNDER A ROOF
AND TO LEO'S POINT, IF WE'RE
LOOKING TO SAVE MONEY IN THE OUT
YEARS, THIS DOESN'T DIRECTLY
SAVE MONEY ON THE OUT YEARS ON
PAPER, BUT BUT IT COULD PREVENT
PEOPLE FROM FALLING INTO
HOMELESSNESS, RIGHT. WHICH WOULD
THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO FUND IN
OTHER SUBCOMMITTEES AND SO FORTH
. SO IN THAT WAY, IT DOES SAVE
MONEY OUT IN THE OUT YEARS, FOR
ME, UNLESS I'M REALLY LOOKING AT
THIS WRONG, WHICH IS
POSSIBILITY, I THINK THOSE TWO,
TWO, TWO PROGRAMS, HAVE A LOT OF
FLEXIBILITY AND ALSO IMPORTANCE
TO STABILIZE OUR FAMILIES. WE
DON'T KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES,
POTENTIALLY, FOR CUTTING THE
SINGLE ALLOCATION. WE DON'T KNOW
YET, BUT I THINK I CAN REALLY
LOOK AT FAMILY STABILIZATION AND
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT AND LOOK
AT THE CONSEQUENCES THAT WE COME
THAT WE CAN SEE FROM THAT, I'M
INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT HOW WE
FUND OR WHAT FUNDS THE CHILD
POVERTY AND FAMILY SUPPLEMENT
ACCOUNT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
GETTING THE GRANT INCREASE FROM
MAYBE DEPARTMENT OF EMILY.
EMILY. RIGHT I CAN DEFINITELY
TAKE THAT BACK. AND REACH OUT TO
OUR REALIGNMENT. ANALYST, YEAH,
THAT'S I COULD TELL YOU WHAT
THAT IS FUNDED FOR. IF YOU'D
LIKE, SO, THAT IS FUNDED OUT OF
1991 REALIGNMENT, WHICH IS
FUNDED ITSELF FROM A DEDICATED
PORTION OF STATE SALES TAX AND
VÆ VLF REVENUES, A CERTAIN,
BASED ON THESE COMPLICATED
REALIGNMENT FORMULAS, THERE IS A
CERTAIN AMOUNT THAT IS DEDICATED
TO THAT SUB ACCOUNT EVERY YEAR
OF GROWTH MONIES, WHEN THERE ARE
GROWTH MONIES AVAILABLE, WHEN
THOSE REVENUE SOURCES GROW AND
THERE IS GROWTH, IT LOOKS LIKE
WE GOT A REVENUE GROWTH FROM IT,
WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ABLE TO DO
THE POINT 8. EXACTLY. SO THERE'S
PROJECTED TO BE REVENUE GROWTH
IN 91 REALIGNMENT. AND THAT IS
THAT IS LEADING TO A PORTION OF
THAT GROWTH GOING TO THAT SUB
ACCOUNT. AND THAT IS WHAT
TRIGGERS THE GRANT INCREASE.
OKAY I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUES. IF THEY'D LIKE TO
ASK ANY QUESTIONS. SENATOR ROTH,
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MAYBE
YOU COVERED THIS. I I'VE BEEN
CONCERNED ABOUT WORKFORCE
TRAINING FOR SOME TIME. WE'RE
GOING TO DO A LAST YEAR OR THE
YEAR BEFORE I FORGET, WHICH WE
DID A BILL TO TRY TO LINK
WORKFORCE TRAINING WITH TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE JOBS THAT WE'RE
TRAINING PEOPLE TO DO ARE ACTUAL
JOBS AND THAT THEY SECURE
EMPLOYMENT IN THE FIELDS FOR
WHICH WE'VE SPENT MONEY TRAINING
THEM, A LITTLE BIT DISCONNECTED
FROM WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, BUT
MAYBE NOT SO MUCH WITH RESPECT
TO SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT. DO YOU
WORK OR DO THE AGENCIES WORK
WITH THE WORKFORCE TRAINING
BOARDS IN THE REGIONS AROUND THE
STATE TO TRY TO IDENTIFY, TO THE
EXTENT THAT THOSE BOARDS KNOW,
WHICH IS ANOTHER ISSUE, WHAT
JOBS ACTUALLY EXIST? AND ARE
THEY WHETHER THEY'RE CAREER JOBS
AND WHAT SORT OF TRAINING IS
REQUIRED, AND TO TRY TO ASSIST
THOSE MOST VULNERABLE THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO HELP IN SECURING
EMPLOYMENT THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS.
IF THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION. YEAH.
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR THAT
QUESTION. AND YES, JUST AGAIN,
AS I REFERENCED THAT WHEN THE,
REAUTHORIZATION OCCURRED FOR THE
WORKFORCE INNOVATION
OPPORTUNITIES ACT, THE
DEPARTMENT'S ACTUALLY WORKED.
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
AND LABOR AGENCY, EMPLOYMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ETC. HAD
QUITE A FEW CONVERSATIONS TO
MAKE SURE EXACTLY THAT WAS
OCCURRING. THERE WERE NEW
MEASURES WITHIN THE WIOA
OPPORTUNITY AROUND ALSO WHO WAS
BEING SERVED AND ACTUALLY
CONNECTION BETWEEN TANF PROGRAMS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND THE WIOA
EFFORTS. SO THE DEPARTMENT DID
PUT OUT GUIDANCE AT THAT TIME,
BOTH AROUND THE OPPORTUNITIES TO
WORK TOGETHER AND PARTNER A LOT
OF ASSESSMENTS BEING DONE FROM
FROM THE PROGRAMS IN THAT SPACE
LOCALLY THAT ARE VERY RELEVANT
TO WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR TANF
PROGRAMS. AND SO IN ADDITION,
WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IN THE
NEXT ITEM, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
THE CALWORKS OUTCOMES,
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REVIEW.
DIRECTOR KAMINSKY REFERENCED CAL
OR OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK. WE HAVE A
WHOLE KIND OF SECTION WITHIN
THAT EVALUATION THAT COUNTIES
ARE DOING RELATED TO ECONOMIC
EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS, WHERE
WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE SOME OF
THOSE PARTNERSHIPS BEING LINKED
TO YOUR POINT OF WHAT IS KIND OF
THE INVESTMENT IN WORKFORCE,
WHAT ARE THE NEEDS OF THE
EMPLOYERS, AND HOW DO WE MAKE
THOSE RELATIONSHIPS HAPPEN? SO
WE CERTAINLY HAVE PUT OUT A
NUMBER OF GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND
OPPORTUNITY CONNECTIONS TO MAKE
SURE THAT'S HAPPENING LOCALLY.
WHEN COUNTIES ARE LOOKING TO
CREATE THOSE PARTNERSHIPS WITH
EMPLOYERS LOCALLY. WELL, WHAT
WE'RE WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO
DO, AND IN FACT, THE GOVERNOR
SIGNED IT. SO AT SOME POINT IT
WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IS CREATE
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYER REPORTING SO
WE CAN LINK EMPLOYER REPORTING
WITH THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD AND
ACTUALLY TRACK TRAINING THROUGH
THE PIPELINE TO ACTUALLY
ACTUALLY GET STATISTIC CGRTS AT
THE END OF THE ROAD, WHICH WOULD
CERTAINLY, PERHAPS HELP YOU HELP
THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
HELP. I I'LL BE INTERESTED IN
HEARING WHAT YOU SAY IN THE NEXT
SEGMENT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE
Þ AND THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
BOARDS DO NOT HAVE THOSE
STATISTICS TODAY. WE CANNOT TELL
WHETHER PEOPLE WHO ARE TRAINED
AND IF SOME SOMEONE SUGGESTED TO
ME THE OTHER DAY THAT WE PASS
ABOUT $6 BILLION OF ALL FLAVORS
OF MONEY THROUGH OUR BUDGET OUT
FOR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
TRAINING, AND YET WE CAN'T TELL
WHETHER ANY OF THOSE DOLLARS
EFFECTIVELY RESULTED IN SOMEONE
GETTING A JOB FOR WHICH THEY'VE
BEEN TRAINED. SO, YOU KNOW,
MAYBE YOU HAVE SOME DATA THROUGH
YOUR PROGRAMS AND YOUR
REPORTING. THAT WOULD BE
INFORMATIVE. I LOOK FORWARD TO
HEARING THAT. BUT STAND BY.
MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME WITH OUR
OVERARCHING EFFORT HERE TO BRING
SOME ACCOUNTABILITY TO THIS
AREA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. LOVE THAT GENERAL.
STAND BY. SENATOR GROVE, THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I APOLOGIZE. I
HAD OTHER THINGS THAT I HAD TO
DO BEFORE I CAME TO COMMITTEE,
BUT I'M GLAD I WAS ABLE TO CATCH
THIS ISSUE. I JUST HAVE A
QUESTION THAT IS NOT REALLY
RELATED TO A SPECIFIC ITEM. I
CAN'T SAY THAT EITHER. IT'S,
IT'S A GENERAL QUESTION,
BASICALLY MAINLY FOR THE LAO, I
GUESS, WHO COMES UP WITH THE
METHODOLOGY RIGHT. AND, AND I
WANT TO KNOW THAT IS, IS THE
GOVERNOR COME TO YOU AND GIVE
YOU MARCHING ORDERS THAT
BASICALLY SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE
HAVE TO CUT THESE DEPARTMENTS
AND THESE SERVICES. IS IT STAFF
THAT MAKES THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS? I'VE BEEN HERE
SINCE 2010, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IF
THERE'S A BUDGET DEFICIT, THE
FIRST PEOPLE WE AFTER ARE THE
MOST VULNERABLE MEMBERS OF OUR
SOCIETY, WHETHER IT'S
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED,
WHETHER IT'S INDIVIDUALS ON
SOCIAL SERVICES, FOOD STAMPS,
WHATEVER. SO I GUESS, I GUESS,
IT'D BE THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. AND THE REASON WHY I'M
ASKING THAT IS BECAUSE YOU'RE
CLAIMING THAT THERE'S $900
MILLION OF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S
$900 MILLION OF OFFSETS, BUT YOU
CAN'T FROM MY UNDERSTANDING,
POINT TO ANY SPECIFICS ABOUT
WHAT YOU'RE REALLY SAVING AND
POINT YOU KNOW, IF WE CUT $9
MILLION, 900 MILLION, ALMOST $1
BILLION HERE, WE CAN WE'RE GOING
TO SAVE THIS, THIS AND THIS OR
THERE'S NO OFFSET. SO WHO COMES
UP WITH THE METHODOLOGY? AND HOW
COME YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT THE
$900 MILLION IS OFFSETTING?
EMILY, BEFORE YOU ANSWER,
SENATOR GROVE. YES, I MEAN,
THEY'VE THROWN EMILY INTO THE
WOLVES TODAY. WE'VE BEEN SORRY,
EMILY. WE'VE BEEN BECAUSE WE'VE
BEEN I'VE I MEAN, I JUST
APOLOGIZE, EMILY, BUT I JUST I
JUST GRILLED HER ON THAT, OKAY?
NO, BUT, YOU KNOW, GO AHEAD.
ANSWER BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T HERE.
AND I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO HEAR,
BUT. OKAY. AND I DIDN'T KNOW
THAT. AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE. I
HAD STUFF I HAD TO DO BEFORE
OKAY. SO I AND THAT WAS NOT
DIRECTED AT YOU EMILY. LIKE, AS
I'M NOT LIKE ATTACKING YOU. I'M
ATTACKING THE PROCESS. OKAY.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YOU'RE. IT
IS A GROUP EFFORT. I WILL SAY
BETWEEN. SO WE SHOULD BRING THEM
ALL TO THE WOLVES. IS WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING? THE AGENCY,
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, THE
LEGISLATURE. WE LISTEN TO ALL
SIDES AND IT IS NOT THAT WE
DON'T BELIEVE IN THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE PROGRAMS,
BUT WE DID HAVE A BUDGET
SHORTFALL TO FILL AND MAY HAVE
TO MAKE HARD DECISIONS. WE'RE
HAPPY TO HEAR ALTERNATIVES TO
THE CUTS, PROPOSED CUTS WE HAVE
IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET. OKAY
YOU JUST SAID YOU SIT OR YOU
HEAR FROM ALL SIDES WHO OR WHAT
ORGANIZATIONS ARE TELLING YOU TO
MAKE THESE CUTS TO THE MOST
VULNERABLE MEMBERS OF OUR
SOCIETY. NOW, WE'RE NOT TALKING
I MEAN, I'M GOING TO BE LIKE,
SARCASTIC, WE'RE FUNDING THE
WOLF PROGRAM, BUT WE'RE TAKING
MONEY AWAY FROM PEOPLE'S
FAMILIES. SO I GUESS WHO IS WHO
IS THE WHO ARE THE GROUPS OR THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE WHEN YOU SAY YOU
MEET WITH ALL SIDES THAT ARE
SAYING, BUT YOU GOT TO TAKE THIS
$900 MILLION, WHO ARE THOSE
PEOPLE? I WANT TO KNOW WHO THEY
ARE. I CANNOT PERSONALLY SAY WHO
EXACTLY IT IS THAT IS MAKING
EACH DECISION IN THE BUDGET. SO
YOU CAN'T OR WON'T LIKE YOU
DON'T KNOW, LIKE YOU DON'T KNOW
OR YOU DO KNOW AND YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO TELL ME, SORRY, SORRY,
A COMBINATION OF LIKE, I
PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW ABOVE MY
HEAD THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE
AT THE ANALYST LEVEL. SO. OKAY,
WHO WOULD KNOW? I CAN FOLLOW UP
WITH YOU ON THAT INFORMATION.
OKAY BECAUSE THAT'S VERY
IMPORTANT TO ME, JUST BASED ON
WHAT YOU SAID, YOU LISTEN TO ALL
SIDES. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT
SIDES YOU'VE LISTENED TO? LIKE,
WHO ARE THEY? WHO ARE THOSE
PEOPLE IN THAT SIDES MEETING?
IT'S ALL SIDES, A CONVERSATION
BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN
HAPPENING AND WILL CONTINUE TO
HAPPEN THROUGH MAY REVISION TO,
YOU KNOW, ENACT A BUDGET IN THE
END IN JUNE. SO, SO
CONVERSATIONS WITH, WITH YOUR
STAFF AND AS WELL AS OTHER
PEOPLE IN THE, IN THE
LEGISLATURE. SO I'M NOT SPEAKING
FOR MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I CAN
PRETTY MUCH GUESS THAT WE'VE HAD
CONVERSATIONS. I DON'T THINK
IT'S US ASKING. I THINK YOU
MIGHT BE SPEAKING FOR US. I
THINK I MEAN, OKAY, OKAY, THEN
I'M GOING TO TAKE I'M GOING TO
I'M GOING TO TAKE MY COLLEAGUES,
THE CHAIR'S, PRIVILEGE. I'M
SPEAKING FOR MY COLLEAGUES.
WE'RE NOT TELLING THE GOVERNOR
TO MAKE THESE CUTS. THIS CAME
FROM HIM. SO IT'S NOT ALL SO
WHEN YOU SAY ALL SIDES, IT'S NOT
US. SO WHO IS US OR WHO IS? WHO
IS? WHO IS THESE? THE WHO IS.
WHO IS ASKING YOU? I WANT TO
KNOW WHERE IT COMES FROM. I WANT
TO KNOW THE METHODOLOGY, BECAUSE
EVERY YEAR THERE'S A BUDGET
DEFICIT. THEY GO AFTER THE
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PEOPLE,
THEY GO AFTER POOR FAMILIES AND
THEY GO AFTER CALFRESH AND ALL
THOSE THINGS THEY DON'T TALK
ABOUT. ONE YEAR THEY WERE
SPENDING $21 MILLION. WHEN I WAS
IN THE ASSEMBLY TO PAINT THE
TOWERS WHITE AND RED. RIGHT.
DON'T SPIN THE $21 MILLION ON
THE WHITE AND RED TOWERS I KNOW
IT'S IMPORTANT BUT YOU KNOW
PROBABLY NOT AS IMPORTANT AS
THIS. SO AND I'M NOT AND THIS IS
NOT PLEASE DON'T TAKE THIS AS
SOMETHING PERSONAL TO YOU. I
THINK YOU'RE A VERY LOVELY
PERSON. YOU'RE ALWAYS BEEN KIND.
YOU'RE ALWAYS RESPONSIVE. BUT I
WANT TO KNOW THE METHODOLOGY.
AND I WANT TO KNOW THE OFFSETS
FOR THE $900 MILLION. AND I WANT
TO KNOW THE ALL SIDES. AND I
WANT TO KNOW WHO'S TELLING YOU
TO TAKE THESE CUTS. THAT'S WHAT
I WANT TO KNOW. IS THAT OKAY?
IT'S GREAT. I WISH Y'ALL WERE
HERE EARLIER WHEN I ASKED THESE
QUESTIONS, BUT WHAT WAS THE
ANSWER? JUST REPEAT THE ANSWER
YOU GAVE TO THE CHAIR, I GUESS.
OR I CAN WATCH A VIDEO, BUT I
GOT NO ANSWERS. OH, YOU DIDN'T I
DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER. AND YOU'RE
THE CHAIR. I DIDN'T GET IT.
WELL, I'M NOT GONNA GET AN
ANSWER THEN IF YOU'RE THE CHAIR.
I DIDN'T, AND I REALLY RELAYED
MY FRUSTRATION REGARDING NOT
GETTING AN ANSWER. WHO IF THE
CHAIR AND I AND MY COLLEAGUES
HERE WANTED TO MEET WITH
SOMEBODY TO TELL US THAT ANSWER,
WHO WOULD WE MEET WITH? JUST
GIVE US A NAME. EMILY MARSHALL,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. AND I CAN
FOLLOW UP WITH YOU AFTER WITH
YOUR STUFF. HOW DO WE GET IT ON
PUBLIC RECORD? RIGHT NOW, I
SUPPOSE, BUT, I CAN FOLLOW UP
WITH YOU WITH WITH CERTAIN
MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO
HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH. AND I'M
NOT TRYING TO THROW I JUST WANT
TO KNOW. I'M NOT TRYING TO THROW
ANYBODY UNDER THE BUS. I JUST
WANT TO KNOW THE METHODOLOGY,
AND I WANT TO KNOW THE OFFSET,
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE
MONEY FROM THE PEOPLE THAT ARE
IN THIS AUDIENCE OR NOT, ALL OF
THEM, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO
TAKE MONEY FROM THEM, BUT YOU'RE
GOING TO SPEND MONEY OVER HERE
ON, FRANKLY, I ALMOST CUSSED
STUFF THAT DOESN'T MATTER TO THE
99.9% OF CALIFORNIANS I WANT TO
KNOW WHY AND I WANT TO KNOW
WHO'S SAYING IT. MADAM, MADAM
CHAIR, PERHAPS I CAN SUGGEST
THAT IF THE QUESTION IS CLEAR
THAT THE, THAT THEY BE ABLE TO
SUBMIT IT IN WRITING DIRECTED TO
YOU WITH A COPY TO THE MEMBERS.
I MEAN, I WOULD LOVE THAT, BUT I
THINK, YOU KNOW, SENATOR, OUR
COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN ASKING THIS
QUESTION JUST YESTERDAY IN THE
FULL BUDGET COMMITTEE, SENATOR
BREAKSPEARE HAD THAT QUESTION TO
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AS WELL.
RIGHT. SHE WAS ASKING, HOW DO WE
DETERMINE AND RANK PROGRAMS AND
WHAT GETS CUT? AND IT'S HARD FOR
ME TO BELIEVE THAT IN THAT SIDE
CONVERSATION OR MEETING THAT ON
THE WHITEBOARD WAS CHILDREN'S
AND FAMILIES LIKE I, I FIND THAT
VERY HARD THAT SOMEONE TOOK A
POST-IT DURING THEIR EXERCISE
AND SAID, CUT CHILD AND FAMILY
CALWORKS. SO IN MY MIND, THAT'S
WHAT I SEE, THAT THAT'S HOW WE
DETERMINED THAT WE WERE GOING TO
CUT THIS PROGRAM. I WANT TO KNOW
WHO THAT IS. SO WE'VE ALL BEEN
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS HOW DO
WE GET TO THAT METHODOLOGY, THAT
DOES THAT METHODOLOGY NEED TO
CHANGE SOMEHOW? LIKE WHO IS
PUNCHING THE NUMBERS? WHAT
PERSON FAR, FAR AWAY UNDER A
ROCK THAT'S PROBABLY NEVER MET A
SINGLE PERSON IN THEIR LIFE
SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHAT A CHILD
IS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT VULNERABLE
FAMILIES ARE. THIS PROGRAM SEEMS
LIKE IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD
CUT. I'M JUST SUGGESTING, MADAM
CHAIR, THAT THEN PERHAPS PERHAPS
WE NEED TO EXTEND AN INVITATION
TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE OR OTHER
APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUALS TO COME
AND ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. AND YOU
KNOW, I TOLD I TOLD EMILY, I'M
SO SORRY. IT'S YOU, BUT I TOLD
EMILY I WAS LIKE, WE KNEW WHAT
TOPIC WE WERE GOING TO GET
DISCUSSED WAS GOING TO GET
DISCUSSED. WHY NOT BRING SOMEONE
THAT HAD THE ANSWERS, TO OUR
QUESTIONS. AND I KNOW THERE'S A
FULL TEAM OF DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE HERE, SO NO ONE ELSE
THAT HAS AN ANSWER AS TO HOW WE
GOT TO THIS. YES. MY TURN. MAYBE
WE MIGHT HAVE A GREAT. YEAH. AND
I'M KHN DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
JUST ON THE SAFETY NET RESERVE
PORTION OF THAT. SO WE'RE
PROPOSING TO WITHDRAW THE
ADDITIONAL 900 MILLION,
SPECIFICALLY THE, THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET PROJECTED AN INCREASE OF
499,000,000 MILLION, GENERAL
FUND IN BUDGET YEAR FOR THE
MEDI-CAL CASELOAD COMPARED TO
THE 2023 BUDGET ACT. AND THEN IN
SPECIFIC TO THE CAL WORKS
PROGRAM, WE HAD A 2.3% INCREASE
FOR CASELOAD. CAL WORKS,
COMPARED TO THE 2023 BUDGET ACT,
AND THEN A 3.9% INCREASE IN THE
BUDGET YEAR COMPARED TO THE 2023
BUDGET. ACT 409 499 INCREASE
MEDI-CAL. I DON'T EVEN WANT TO
HEAR ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE
THE MCO TAX LIKE THAT SHOULD
FUND ALL OF THE MEDI-CAL SIDE,
AND THEY'RE PUTTING IT IN THE
GENERAL BUDGET, I THOUGHT, BUT
BUT PUTTING THE GENERAL BUDGET
TO OFFSET THE 499. OH, OKAY.
RIGHT, RIGHT. YOU CAN YOU WE
HAVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE
MCO TAX. THERE'S NO REASON THAT
THE SAFETY NET RESERVE SHOULD BE
EVEN USED A DOLLAR FOR THE
MEDI-CAL SIDE. WE COULD USE FULL
THE $900 MILLION FOR CALWORKS
MCO TAX IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO
COVER THAT. SO I HEARD 1.2
BILLION IS FOR CALWORKS IS HERE
THAT WE'RE INCLUDING THE BUDGET.
ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT IF. WE
KEEP THE $900 MILLION IN THE
SAFETY NET RESERVE, THAT 1.2
BILLION WILL GO DOWN TO WHAT IS
THAT, $300 MILLION? SO THESE ARE
JUST THE THAT'S FOR SINGLE.
SORRY. WHATEVER IT IS FOR
CALWORKS. 7 BILLION. SO SORRY.
SO 7 BILLION AT THAT 1.2 WAS TOO
LOW. 7 BILLION. SO IF WE KEEP
THAT 900 MILLION IN THE FUND,
THAT'S 700. THAT 7 BILLION WOULD
DECREASE BY 900 MILLION. SO WE
CAN'T SPEAK TO ANY I GUESS,
HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS. BUT
THESE ARE JUST WHAT THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSES. AND
LIKE I THINK MY COLLEAGUE EMILY
MENTIONED, WE ARE MORE THAN
HAPPY TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE LEGISLATURE AND PARTNERS TO
FIND SORT OF SOLUTIONS TO, I
DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A
HYPOTHETICAL. I JUST WANT TO ASK
AND NOT TO BOUNCE OFF THE CHAIR.
AND I APOLOGIZE, MADAM CHAIR,
FOR THE INTERRUPTION. THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT THE
900 MILLION. WHAT'S IT
OFFSETTING? NOBODY. NOBODY IN
THIS ROOM AS SMART AS I MEAN, I
BARELY HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL
DIPLOMA, AND I FIGURED OUT SOME
OF THIS. NOBODY IN THIS ROOM
THAT WORKS IN THIS STUFF ALL DAY
LONG, EVERY DAY, AND PRESENTS
THIS TO US TO VOTE ON, CAN SHARE
WITH US WHAT THE $900 MILLION
OFFSETS. AND TO THE CHAIR'S
QUESTION, DOES IT DECREASE THE
$7 BILLION NOBODY. YEAH. SO AS
MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE $900
MILLION DOES OFFSET INCREASING
COSTS IN THE MEDI-CAL PROGRAM
AND THEN INCREASED CASELOAD
COSTS IN THE CALWORKS PROGRAM.
2.3. CORRECT IN CURRENT YEAR IS
$900 MILLION, 2.3, BUT MEDI-CAL
CASELOAD IS DOWN, CASELOAD COSTS
ARE INCREASING BY 499 MILLION
COMPARED TO THE 2023 BUDGET ACT.
SO I WAS RIGHT. IT WAS 1.2
BILLION GENERAL FUND FOR
CALWORKS. SO IT'S NOT 7 BILLION,
1.2 BILLION GENERAL FUND. SO I
DON'T THINK THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL
SPEAKING LIKE IF THE FUND IS
MEANT TO COVER CALWORKS, IF WE
HAVE 1.2 RIGHT NOW ON THE BUDGET
PROPOSED AND WE'RE LIKE, NO,
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANYTHING
FROM THE SAFETY NET RESERVE DOES
THAT. IN THEORY, IT SHOULDN'T
EVEN BE IN THEORY, LIKE IT'S ONE
PLUS ONE WOULD DECREASE 1.2 TO
$300 MILLION FOR CALWORKS
BECAUSE IF THE FUND IS BEING
USED TO OFFSET THE COST FOR
CALWORKS AND WE SAY NO TO THAT,
DON'T USE IT, THEN THAT MEANS WE
WOULD THEN HAVE A BUDGET
PROPOSAL OF $300 MILLION FOR
CALWORKS. SORRY, COULD YOU
REPEAT THE FIRST PART? SO THE
PROPOSED BUDGET RIGHT NOW SAYS
$1.296 BILLION FOR CALWORKS
GENERAL FUND. OKAY IF THE
LEGISLATURE SAYS NO AND REJECTS
THE PROPOSAL OF DEPLETING THE
FUND, WOULD THE ADMINISTRATION
COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, YOU
SAID NO TO THIS. SO THAT MEANS
THAT WE ONLY NOW HAVE $300
MILLION FOR CALWORKS, BECAUSE WE
WERE USING THE $900 MILLION AS
PART OF THE 1.2. RIGHT? SO IN
THAT INSTANCE, BECAUSE WE ARE
FACING A BUDGET SHORTFALL, WE
WOULD NEED TO FIND OTHER PROGRAM
AREAS TO ADDRESS THAT SHORTFALL.
WE WOULD NEED TO FIND OTHER
SOURCES OF REVENUE TO. BUT IF WE
DON'T IF WE DON'T, THEN WE'D
HAVE A BUDGET DEFICIT. THEN WE'D
KNOW. THEN WE JUST HAVE WOULD
HAVE $300 MILLION, OR WE WOULD
FOR CALWORKS OR WE WOULD GUESS,
TRY TO FIND OTHER PLACES. YEAH,
WE WOULD NEED TO FIND OTHER
PLACES. WE WOULD NEED TO FUND
SOME. CORRECT? CORRECT. SO
THAT'S THE KEY. THAT'S THE KEY.
THAT'S THE KEY THING. WE WOULD
NEED TO FIND ANOTHER PLACE TO
CUT. LET'S FIND ANOTHER PLACE.
I'M SURE THERE'S OTHER THINGS
OUT THERE. AND IT'S INTERESTING.
SINCE 2010, I THINK MY COLLEAGUE
FROM STOCKTON HAS BEEN HERE
SINCE 20 1012, SOMETHING LIKE
THAT. 12 EVERY YEAR WE HAVE A
BUDGET DEFICIT. THIS IS THE
FIRST WITH TWO GOVERNORS. THIS
IS THE FIRST THING THAT GETS
CUT. SO IS THAT LIKE STRATEGIC?
JUST CURIOUS IS THAT LIKE
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
STRATEGIC? I'M REALLY THIS
BUDGET WITH ALL THIS HAS MADE ME
THINK ABOUT PREVIOUS BUDGETS.
AND I WANT TO KNOW THE
METHODOLOGY BECAUSE OUT OF THE
GATE THIS IS THE FIRST CUTS. AND
THEN IS IT LIKE, OH WELL WE GAVE
YOU THAT. SO NOW YOU HAVE TO
FUND THIS OR YOU KNOW, BECAUSE
YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL GOING TO
FIGHT FOR IT. AND WE ALWAYS
USUALLY WIN ON THESE ISSUES
BECAUSE IT'S PROTECTING THE MOST
VULNERABLE MEMBERS OF OUR
SOCIETY. BUT IS THAT WHY YOU
GUYS DO IT? LIKE WHAT'S THE
STRATEGY BEHIND THIS AND THE
METHODOLOGY I WANT THAT IN
WRITING TO MADAM CHAIR, IF
THAT'S OKAY, BECAUSE YOU'RE
GOING TO BE HERE IN 12 YEARS.
SHOULD WE GO IN WITH YOU WHEN
YOU HAVE THE SIDE CONVERSATION?
SHOULD WE BE THERE? LOCKED ARMS?
WE CAN MAKE TIME, YOU KNOW, WE
WILL ROLL WITH YOU. I APPRECIATE
THE PARTNERSHIP OF THE
LEGISLATURE. ALWAYS KEVIN MIGHT
ANSWER THIS QUESTION. KEVIN, YOU
GOT TO ANSWER FOR THESE
QUESTIONS, OKAY, SENATOR. SORRY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, FOR THE
LEEWAY FOR MY BEHAVIOR. AND I
APOLOGIZE. THIS WAS NOT DIRECTED
AT YOU. I JUST DON'T GET IT. AND
I WANT TO ANSWER. OKAY. THANK
YOU. OKAY. MAYBE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE OR MAYBE LÀ QUESTION. SO
SO GOING BACK TO SINGLE
ALLOCATION. EMILY. STRAP IN. IN
REGARDING IN REGARDING THE
SINGLE ALLOCATION, WE'VE,
COUNTIES HAVE RETURNED ALREADY
$300 MILLION IN UNSPENT FOR THE
LAST FIVE YEARS. DO WE
ANTICIPATE EVEN, SO LET ME LET
ME. SORRY. I GAVE THE WRONG
NUMBER. WE DID EARLY ACTION TO
TAKE BACK $288 MILLION. RIGHT DO
WE ANTICIPATE ANY FURTHER
UNSPENT FROM THE 20 2122 SINGLE
ALLOCATION THAT COULD HELP THIS
YEAR? THE AMOUNT FOR, THE EARLY
REVERSION FOR 22, 23, WE DON'T
ANTICIPATE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS.
OKAY. IN 336 MILLION, I BELIEVE
IS THE NO. THIS IS FROM 21,
2122, OKAY, 288 FROM 2122. WE
DON'T ANTICIPATE ADDITIONAL
DOLLARS FOR 2122. AND THEN HOW
DO WE, ANTICIPATE SCORING
CURRENT YEAR SAVINGS IN THE 23
TO 24 FROM, SO HOW ARE YOU
SCORING CURRENT YEAR SAVINGS IN
THE 2324 FROM CUTTING FAMILY
STABILIZATION AND SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT. SO THESE PROGRAMS
ARE CURRENTLY BEING SERVED RIGHT
NOW. AND I THINK SOMEONE
MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, SO HOW
WERE WE SCORING CURRENT YEAR
SAVINGS, GIVEN THAT IT'S
CURRENTLY SERVING SOME PEOPLE.
SO YES, APPRECIATE THE QUESTION.
I MEAN, I THINK THE CONVERSATION
WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO HAVE IS
THAT THE SAVINGS WERE SCORED
POINT IN TIME BASED ON
PROJECTIONS. SO WE'D NEED TO, WE
HAD CURRENT APPROPRIATIONS OUT
TO COUNTIES, SO WE'D NEED TO
MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IN MAY REVISION
THAT BETTER REFLECT WHAT THE
ACTUAL EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURES
WERE. OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE
OUT THE PANEL. AND I DON'T KNOW
IF MISS EILEEN, YOU'VE THOUGHT
ABOUT MY QUESTION OR IF ANYONE
ELSE HAS THOUGHT ABOUT MY
QUESTION, HOW YOU WOULD
PRIORITIZE THESE, I HAVE, AND
I'LL JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, I
RESPECTFULLY HAVE HAVE SAT IN
MANY OF THESE DIFFERENT
POSITIONS THROUGHOUT MY LONG
CAREER IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND
, WHERE YOUR LOVELY STAFF ARE
SITTING AND, I SO I GUESS, I
WOULD JUST RESPECTFULLY SAY
THAT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD NOT
PRIORITIZE ANY OF THESE FOR
CUTS. I WOULD LOOK ELSEWHERE IN
THE BUDGET. I THINK, YOU ALL
HAVE HAD THE CONVERSATION
ALREADY. THE LEGISLATURE CREATED
THAT SAFETY NET RESERVE EXACTLY.
FOR THIS PURPOSE, TO AVOID THIS
MOMENT IN TIME. AND HERE WE ARE,
I GET I GET THAT IT'S EASY FOR
ME TO SAY, IT'S A BAD BUDGET
YEAR, AND WE'VE GOT TO FIND CUTS
SOMEWHERE AND FIND THEM
SOMEWHERE ELSE. BUT I MEAN THAT
VERY SINCERELY. WE'RE HAVING
CONVERSATIONS AMONG OUR MEMBERS
TO SHAKE OUR COUCH CUSHIONS,
TOO. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT
WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING THAT IF
THERE ARE UNSPENT MONIES OUT
THERE TO CONTRIBUTE, WE
SHOULDN'T BE CONTRIBUTING THOSE,
BUT, THESE ARE THE MOST
VULNERABLE, CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES COMBINED WITH CHILD
WELFARE. THE IF THIS ISN'T WHAT
WE DO AS GOVERNMENT, WHAT DO WE
DO? AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE THE
SINGLE ALLOCATION I GET IT'S NOT
SEXY. IT SOUNDS LIKE ADMIN,
THESE ARE PEOPLE AND SERVICES
THAT HELP OUR MOST MOST
VULNERABLE AND NEEDY FAMILIES
AND CHILDREN IN THE DEEPEST
POVERTY PHASE, FACING
UNIMAGINABLE BARRIERS. AND I, I
JUST I CAN'T SAY THAT THAT ANY
ONE OF THESE PROGRAMS IS MORE OR
LESS IMPORTANT THAN THE OTHER.
THEY'RE ALL VITAL, VITAL
SERVICES AND SUPPORTS TO THESE
FAMILIES. AND I DON'T I DON'T
KNOW WHAT WE DO WITHOUT THEM.
IT'S NOT HELPFUL, I GET IT. BUT,
BUT IT IS TRUE. OKAY DOES ANYONE
HAVE ANY PRIORITIZATION THEY'D
LIKE TO SHARE? IF NOT. JUST TO
SUM THIS UP, WE'RE ANGRY. WE
DON'T LIKE IT. WE DON'T LIKE IT.
BUT IS. THERE ARE WAYS TO FUND
IT AT SOME VERSION Ã SOME
AMOUNT. I THINK I SPOKE ABOUT
THE EMPLOYMENT ONE AROUND 90
MILLION, I SHARED MY PRIORITIES
IN THESE. I DID RANK THEM, YOU
KNOW, THOSE TWO PROGRAMS ABOVE
ALL THE OTHER ONES. AND SHOULD
THE, SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT MOVE
FORWARD, AS I HOPE IT SHOULD. IT
SHOULD AS IT SHOULD. I'D LIKE
GUIDELINES FROM US TO THE
COUNTIES ON WHO WE CONTRACT WITH
AND WHAT JOBS WE'RE PUTTING
PEOPLE IN. I THINK THAT PART IS
REALLY IMPORTANT. AND IF WE'RE
GOING TO DEPLETE THIS FUND, THEN
WE SHOULD FUND EVERY SINGLE
CALWORKS PROGRAM, BUT I KNOW I'M
HERE FOR COMPROMISES. SO IF YOU
WANT TO TAKE HALF, LET'S FUND
THE REST. YOU KNOW, LET'S DON'T
DON'T HIT THIS COMMUNITY WITH
TWO PUNCHES LIKE THIS IS A KHÓ
RIGHT NOW, WE NEED TO FIND A
DIFFERENT WAY TO GO. NINE
ROUNDS, AND NOT END AT THE FIRST
ROUND. BECAUSE THIS IS JUST
KNOCKING EVERYONE OUT. WE GOOD
ON THIS PANEL? OKAY. THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
THANK YOU. EMILY, DO YOU GET A
BREAK? I DO NOT. OH, OKAY, MADAM
CHAIR, JUST REAL QUICK AND NO
ANSWERS. NO NOTHING. I DON'T
NEED ANYTHING. I'M JUST GOING TO
LET YOU KNOW I'M ASKING MY
COLLEAGUES OR MY STAFF. I WANT
TO PUT A LIST OF THE MOST
OBSCENE THINGS THAT WE'RE
FUNDING IN THIS BUDGET, AND WE
WILL FIND THAT MONEY AND GIVE
YOU A LIST. I DEFINITELY HAVE A
LIST. OH, YOU DO? OH, OKAY. ALL
RIGHT, WELL, WE'LL ADD TO YOUR
LIST FROM A DIFFERENT LENS.
YEAH. OKAY. THERE'S THINGS IN
HERE. ALL RIGHT. ISSUE NUMBER
TWO IS THE FEDERAL CALWORKS
PILOT PROGRAM DIRECTOR IS
JOINING US BACK AGAIN. WE HAVE
SONIA STILL WITH US FROM LAO,
AND WE'RE GOING TO BE JOINED BY
TWO ONE ADVOCATE AND THEN A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM GRACE AND
CHILD POVERTY. OUR NUMBER ONE
GUEST HERE, ANDREW. OKAY WE'RE
GOING TO KICK IT OFF WITH YOU,
DIRECTOR. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, KIM JOHNSON,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.
THIS IS AN EXCITING OPPORTUNITY
THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. AND
AS YOU KNOW, TODAY, THE WORK
PARTICIPATION RATE IS THE ONE
SINGULAR METRIC IN THE CALWORKS
PROGRAM THAT'S USED TO MEASURE
PERFORMANCE. AND WE HAVE
TOGETHER THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION AND MANY
INTERESTED PARTIES CREATED A
FRAMEWORK AND AN ALTERNATIVE IN
CALIFORNIA TO HAVE A MUCH MORE
ROBUST AND COMPREHENSIVE WAY TO
MEASURE THE SUCCESS OF THE
PROGRAM. AND THE RESOURCES
PROVIDED THROUGH IT. AS YOUR
AGENDA OUTLINES, THE FEDERAL
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF
2023 ALLOWS UP TO FIVE STATES TO
PARTICIPATE IN A PILOT TO
PROMOTE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TEST
ALTERNATIVE BENCHMARKS FOR WORK
AND FAMILY OUTCOMES IN LIEU OF
THE WORK PARTICIPATION RATE. IF
CALIFORNIA'S APPLICATION IS
ACCEPTED, THE STATE WOULD NOT BE
SUBJECT TO THE WPWR IN ANY
ASSOCIATED FISCAL PENALTIES FOR
THE DURATION OF THE PILOT.
AGAIN, THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES LEGISLATURA
ADMINISTRATION. WE'VE BEEN
WORKING A LONG TIME TO TRY TO
ENSURE THIS THIS METRIC AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL. SO AGAIN, WE ARE
GRATEFUL TO SEE THIS OPPORTUNITY
IN FRONT OF US, AS I REFERENCED
ON THE EARLIER PANEL, WE HAVE
TOGETHER PUT FORWARD THE
CALIFORNIA OR CALWORKS WORK
OPPORTUNITY. EXCUSE ME, OUTCOMES
AND ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW ARE
WHAT WE REFERENCE AS CAL OR IT
HAS THREE COMPONENTS PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS, A COUNTY CAL WORK
SELF ASSESSMENT, AND A CAL WORK
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THIS
FRAMEWORK REALLY IS A MUCH
AGAIN, MORE ROBUST WAY. AND I'LL
JUST GIVE YOU A FEW EXAMPLES OF
THE WAYS IN WHICH OUR CURRENT
CAL OR MEASURES PERFORMANCE,
PARTICIPANT ENGAGEMENT, HOW ARE
THOSE FAMILIES PARTICIPATING IN
THE PROGRAM? PARTICIPATION IN
EDUCATION, SKILLS, SERVICE
DELIVERY? HOW ARE THE REFERRALS
TO CHILD CARE AND HOUSING BEING
ACCESSED, AND AT WHAT RATES?
BARRIER REMOVAL, MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES, SUBSTANCE ABUSE,
DOMESTIC ABUSE, ETC. EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINMENT EMPLOYMENT. TO
SENATOR ROTH'S COMMENT, WE ARE
LOOKING AT EMPLOYMENT RATE OF
CALWORKS PARTICIPANTS WAGE
PROGRESSION OVER TIME. POST
CALWORKS EMPLOYMENT RATES AS
WELL AS SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT
AND UNSUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT
RATES, PROGRAM ENTRIES AND
EXITS, AND ALSO FAMILY AND CHILD
WELL-BEING. SO AGAIN, A MUCH,
MUCH MORE ROBUST ARRAY THAN JUST
THE SINGULAR METRIC OF WORK
PARTICIPATION. AND WE HAVE THAT
FRAMEWORK IN PLACE. WE ARE
INVOLVED RIGHT NOW IN A FIVE
YEAR CYCLE. THAT CYCLE WILL
COMPLETE IN JUNE OF 2026, AND
AGAIN WE PLAN TO, ACTUALLY APPLY
TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PILOT
YOUR AGENDA ON PAGE 19 OUTLINES
THE TIME FRAME. WE ARE WAITING
RIGHT NOW IN THE SPRING FOR THE
GUIDANCE FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE APPLICATION
ITSELF, STATES ARE TO BE
SELECTED IN THIS SUMMER, AND THE
PILOT WILL LAUNCH IN OCTOBER OF
THIS YEAR. SO AGAIN, WE IT'S
COMING SOON AND AGAIN ARE
INTERESTED TO THE COMMITTEE'S
QUESTION ARE RELATED TO
ALTERNATIVES, AGAIN I'VE
REFERENCED TO YOU SOME OF THE
MEASURES THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE
FOR FAMILY STABILITY AND
WELL-BEING. AND SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
THERE ARE MEASURES THAT ASSESS
THE PROVISION OF RELEVANT
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, SERVICES,
LIKE I MENTIONED, CHILD CARE
AGAIN, EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
AND SO ON. SO AGAIN, WE DO HAVE
A SERIES OF MEASURES TODAY IN
PLACE THAT ARE ALTERNATIVES TO
THE WORK PARTICIPATION RATE, THE
COMMITTEE ALSO ASKED WE HAD A
REPORT DUE TO THE LEGISLATURE
LAST YEAR WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO
BRING IN MANY INTERESTED PARTIES
IN THE FALL OF 22 TO DEVELOP
RECOMMENDATIONS, KIND OF BEFORE
THE PILOT, EVEN WE KNEW IT
EXISTED. RIGHT. WE WERE AHEAD OF
THE GAME, IN THINKING THROUGH
WHAT ALTERNATIVES COULD EXIST
FOR THE WPWR. AND WE DID PUBLISH
THAT PLAN. AND THE COMMITTEE
ASKED WHAT WERE SOME OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THOSE THAT
WE HEARD OF AND AGAIN, YOUR
AGENDA AS WELL, ON PAGES 22 AND
23, TO OUTLINE A STRONG DESIRE
FROM THE WORKGROUP OF REPEALING
THIS WPWR, LOOKING AT
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE FORM OF
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT,
MEASUREMENT, MEASUREMENTS,
ADOPTING REFORMS, RAIMES FOR
INCREASED SUPPORTS SUCH AS
LOOKING AT REDUCING SANCTIONS
AND REDUCING THE FINANCIAL
IMPACT OF THOSE SANCTIONS. WE
ALSO HAD AN APPENDIX IN THE
REPORT THAT WENT INTO SOME OF
THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM THE WORK GROUP,
ACCOUNTABILITY TIED TO PROGRAM
GOALS AND FAMILY OUTCOMES,
ALIGNING CHANGES TO THE
OVERARCHING VALUES OF THE
PROGRAM. AND AGAIN, MORE ON
CHANGES TO SANCTION POLICY. SO,
WE ARE AGAIN INTERESTED, EAGER
TO LOOK AT THIS APPLICATION AND
APPLY AND DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE
IS A BETTER WAY TO DEMONSTRATE
THE SUCCESS OF THE FAMILIES
PARTICIPATING IN OUR PROGRAM AND
THE SERVICES PROVIDED TO THEM.
SO WE GET AUTOMATICALLY
SELECTED. WE JUST HAVE TO APPLY.
WE'RE NOT AUTOMATICALLY
SELECTED, BUT I WILL SAY THAT WE
ARE IN GREAT POSITION BEING
HAVING ALREADY BEGUN
IMPLEMENTATION OF A ALTERNATIVE
FRAMEWORK THAT PUTS US IN A
REALLY GREAT POSITION IN TERMS
OF OUR ABILITY TO BE SUCCESSFUL
IN OUR APPLICATION. Ã IS THE
GOVERNMENT, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CHOOSING A SELECTED
AMOUNT OF SITES FIVE FIVE OUT
OF. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY STATES
ARE APPLYING FOR THIS? I CAN'T
TELL YOU HOW MANY STATES ARE
APPLYING, BUT I CAN TELL YOU
THAT CALIFORNIA CONTINUES TO
HAVE THE MOST ROBUST TANF
PROGRAM IN THE COUNTRY. I JUST
ACTUALLY LITERALLY LEFT FROM DC
YESTERDAY, SHARING AGAIN SOME OF
THE WAYS IN WHICH WE'VE
CONSTRUCTED OUR PROGRAM IN THE
SUPPORT. SO, SO AND AGAIN, I
KNOW THE COMMITTEE ALSO ASKS
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THESE
PROPOSED REDUCTIONS IN OUR,
BEING A VIABLE CANDIDATE FOR THE
PILOT. AND I WILL JUST SAY,
BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE ARE NOT WE'RE
NOT AT THIS TIME PROPOSING
CHANGES TO OUR FRAMEWORK AND THE
ARRAY OF SERVICES ARE STILL
AVAILABLE. WE WILL STILL BEALL,
ALL BUDGET DECISIONS PENDING
HAVE THE MOST ROBUST ARRAY IN
ANY OTHER STATE IN THE COUNTRY
BECAUSE I HAD I HAD THAT
THOUGHT, TOO. I WAS LIKE, WHY
DON'T WE BE MEASURING OUR
FAILURES? I MEAN, IF WE CUT ALL
THESE PROGRAMS, LIKE, WHAT DO
WE. TO, TO THE POINT OF THE
COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE
TO DEMONSTRATE AND REALLY
UNDERSTAND THE COMPONENTS THAT
WE HAVE BUILT IN THIS PROGRAM
AND WHAT THEIR VALUE IS, OUR
FRAMEWORK THAT WE PUT TOGETHER
REALLY DOES GIVE US A BETTER
ABILITY TO DO THAT TODAY THAN WE
HAD, LET'S SAY, TEN YEARS AGO,
SO, SO TO THE, TO THE POINT,
RIGHT. HOW MANY FAMILIES ARE
EXPERIENCING HOUSING INSTABILITY
, HOW MANY ARE ABLE TO ACCESS
CHILD CARE? WHAT ARE THE OTHER
COMPONENTS THAT WE HAVE? WE'RE
CERTAINLY IN A DIFFERENT PLACE
TODAY THAN WE'VE BEEN
HISTORICALLY IN THE PAST TO BE
ABLE TO TELL THAT STORY. OKAY GO
AHEAD, I HAVE A QUESTION, THE
PREVIOUS DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD
THAT WAS VERY ROBUST. IF THAT
THAT SUBMISSION TO US AS A
LEGISLATURE IS SUCCESSFUL TO CUT
THOSE PROGRAMS DOESN'T THAT
AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE
MEASURABLE GOALS THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PUTTING ON
US TO MEET THOSE GOALS, THOSE
THOSE PROGRAMS THAT ARE IN THIS
$900 MILLION CUT PROGRAM OR CUT
ASPECT OF THE BUDGET, IF THOSE
PROGRAMS ARE CUT, THIS PROGRAM
THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
APPLYING FOR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OR WE'RE EAGERLY,
EAGERLY WANT TO PARTICIPATE WITH
THESE FIVE STATES, CUTTING THOSE
PROGRAMS THAT WE JUST HAD THIS
ROBUST CONVERSATION OVER, IT
DISQUALIFIES, NOT DISQUALIFIES
IT. BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
GOING TO MEASURE US ON HOW GOOD
WE ARE AT THOSE THINGS, AND
WE'RE CUTTING THOSE PROGRAMS.
HOW DO WE EXPLAIN THAT? TO ME?
YOU'RE LIKE SAYING WE'RE GOING
TO PARTICIPATE. WE'RE SO
EXCITED. AND THIS IS NOT IT'S
NOT ACCUSATORY. WE'RE GOING TO
PARTICIPATE. WE'RE SO EXCITED.
BUT WE'VE CUT ALL THOSE PROGRAMS
SO YOU CAN'T MEASURE US. I MEAN,
I'M KIND OF BEING SARCASTIC AND
NO, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION,
SENATOR. AND AGAIN, OUR OUR
ACTUAL FRAMEWORK TO EVALUATE THE
SUCCESS OF OUR TANF PROGRAM IN
CALIFORNIA IS IN PLACE. WE ARE
NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT.
YES, IT IS TRUE THAT IT IS
REFLECTIVE OF THE COMPONENTS
THAT WE HAVE BUILT IN OUR IN OUR
PROGRAM. AND SO IN TERMS OF
OUTCOMES THAT WE WANT TO SEE NOT
ONLY ACCESS TO SERVICES, BUT
WHAT WERE THE LONG TERME IMPACTS
TO EARNING. AND AGAIN, I WOULD
JUST SAY OUR, OUR, OUR FRAMEWORK
IS INCLUSIVE OF WORK. RIGHT. BUT
IT'S CERTAINLY ABOVE AND BEYOND
THAT SINGULAR METRIC. SO, EMILY
BUT NO OFFENSE, EMILY, BUT EMILY
AND ALL OF HER SIDES ARE CUTTING
THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT. THE TANF PROGRAM
IT'S AFFECTED IS THAT IS THAT
PROGRAM AFFECTED BY THE CUTS
THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET? WE BELIEVE WE
WILL STILL BE A VERY VIABLE
CONTENDER AS A STATE APPLICANT
IN THE FEDERAL PILOT,
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FINAL
DECISIONS OF THE BUDGET
COMPONENT, BECAUSE WE CAN STILL
HAVE CAL WORKS HOME VISITING, WE
HAVE SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL
HEALTH. WE HAVE, AGAIN, OUR CASH
GRANTS THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY NOT
SPECIFICALLY OUTLINING THE ARRAY
THAT CALIFORNIA IS BUILT. THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND. IS THERE AN
ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORK TO
EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
PROGRAMS, WITHOUT JUST USING THE
WORK PARTICIPATION RATE? SO WE
DO STILL HAVE ADDITIONAL
SUPPORTS WITHIN OUR CALWORKS
PROGRAM THAT WILL MAKE US A
VIABLE CANDIDATE. OKAY. IT WAS I
WAS JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE I
THOUGHT I THOUGHT IT WAS THE WAY
I READ IT AND THE MEASURABLE
ITEMS THAT WILL BE JUDGED ON TO
PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM. THE
LAST PANEL, WE JUST CUT ALL
THESE PROGRAMS OR MADE SEVERE
ADJUSTMENTS TO THEM. SO I'M GLAD
YOU CLARIFIED THAT. THANK YOU. I
MIGHT NEED FURTHER
CLARIFICATION. AND I GOT MY
STRESS BALL OUT TODAY BECAUSE
I'M FEELING IT TODAY. IT'S A
LITTLE ROUGH, OKAY, SO I KNOW
IT'S NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO
APPLY TO BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR
THIS PROGRAM. IT'S NOT BASED ON
FOR THE PILOT. IT'S NOT BASED ON
THE PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE OR
DON'T HAVE. HOWEVER, IF WE DON'T
HAVE THOSE PROGRAMS AND WE'RE
MEASURING OUTCOMES AND WE REMOVE
A LOT OF PROGRAMS THAT
STABILIZE, FAMILIES WON'T THAT
FURTHER, PUSH FAMILIES OUT, YOU
KNOW, MORE INTO POVERTY OR, YOU
KNOW, JUST THAT'S THE PART I'M
WORRIED ABOUT. NO, I APPRECIATE
THE POINT. I MEAN, AGAIN, I
WOULD JUST SAY, AGAIN, I
RECOGNIZE THAT MY PREDECESSOR,
TEN YEARS AGO, WHEN FAMILY
STABILIZATION WAS BEING PROPOSED
AND, CERTAINLY LIKELY MADE THE
CASE RIGHT, THE NEED FOR THE
PROGRAM IS TO LOOK AT THE
FAMILIES THAT HAVE ADDITIONAL
SUPPORTS NEEDED, KIND OF ABOVE
AND BEYOND WHAT WHAT OTHER
FAMILIES MIGHT. AND SO I
APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S THE
INTENT BEHIND THOSE PROGRAMS TO
TRULY STABILIZE AND SUPPORT
THOSE WHO NEED MORE INTENSIVE
CASE MANAGEMENT, SO THAT'S THE
DESIGN. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY,
DIRECTOR? THIS PILOT MOVES
FORWARD. IT'S GOING TO BE
COLLECTING DATA. WHAT ARE WE
LOOKING AT? WHAT ARE WE WHAT
PROGRAMS ARE WE GOING TO LOOK
LOOK AT? I KNOW YOU MENTIONED
ACCESS TO CHILD CARE SO FORTH,
IS IT HOW LONG THEY'RE IN THE
PROGRAM? ARE THEY MAXING OUT
THEIR 16 MONTHS OR. SURE. THERE
ARE EIGHT DOMAINS, THROUGH OUR
CAL OR METRICS AND MAYBE I'LL
JUST ALSO START WITH THE
OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK OF
OUTCOMES. WE'RE LOOKING FOR
SHORT TERMS. WHAT DO WE EXPECT
OF THOSE PARTICIPATING IN
CALWORKS THAT FAMILY AND
CHILDREN HAVE THEIR BASIC NEEDS
MET? THEY'RE INCREASING THEIR
ACTIVITY IN IN ATTENDANCE IN
VARIOUS THINGS, AND THEY ARE
INCREASING SATISFIED WITH THE
PROGRAM. THEY THEMSELVES ARE
BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE BENEFITING
FROM THE PROGRAM. MEDIUM FIRM
IMPROVED WELL-BEING, IMPROVED
GOAL, ACHIEVEMENT, DEGREE,
CERTIFICATE ACHIEVEMENT, BARRIER
MITIGATION, INCREASED EMPLOYMENT
AND IMPROVED WAGES AND LONG
TERME. WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE
PERSISTENT EMPLOYMENT WITH
INCREASED WAGES, OVERCOMING
PERIODS OF ADVERSITY OR ECONOMIC
LOSS, REDUCED INTERGENERATIONAL
POVERTY, REDUCED NEED FOR INCOME
SUPPORTS IN A POSITIVE CAREER
TRAJECTORY. THAT'S OUR
OVERARCHING KIND OF THEORY OF
CHANGE, OUR LOGIC MODEL TO OUR
METRICS. AND AGAIN, EIGHT
DOMAINS PARTICIPANT ENGAGEMENT,
PARTICIPATION, SERVICE DELIVERY,
BARRIER REMOVAL, EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINMENT, EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
EXITS AND REENTRY, AND FAMILY
AND CHILD WELL-BEING. AND EACH
OF THOSE HAS METRICS UNDER EACH
OF THEM. AND WE DO HAVE A
DASHBOARD THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT
EVEN BY COUNTY AS WELL AS STATE
LEVEL. IN TERMS OF HOW, FOR
EXAMPLE, I USE CHILDCARE AS AN
ACCESS, HOW MANY OF THE FAMILIES
ARE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY ACCESS
CHILDCARE, HOUSING SUPPORTS,
AGAIN, I MENTIONED SOME OF THE
EMPLOYMENT, METRICS AS WELL. AND
AGAIN, IT'S IN THE CONTEXT OF
WHAT I SAID IS THE OVERARCHING
KIND OF EVALUATION OF THE
PROGRAM THAT WILL BE WITH THE
SELF-EVALUATION AND A PROGRAM
IMPROVEMENT PLAN. SO WE SHOULD
BE LOOKING AT OVER TIME HOW
COUNTIES ARE DOING. I ALSO SAY
THAT AS PART OF OUR FIVE YEAR
CYCLE, THE STATE WILL BE COMING
BACK TO ESTABLISH BASELINE
THRESHOLDS FOR EACH OF THESE
MEASURES. SO WE'LL ACTUALLY SAY
WE BELIEVE STATEWIDE AND THE
METRIC AND THE MEASURE SHOULD BE
X. AND THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO
HAVE SOME COMPARISON ACROSS
COUNTIES AND MEETING THAT. AND
THAT'S AGAIN WHERE THE PROGRAM
IMPROVEMENT PLAN BECOMES SO KEY
TO BEING ABLE TO, MAKE
IMPROVEMENT IN AREAS THAT THAT A
COUNTY MIGHT NEED TO. SO THAT'S,
THAT'S THE FRAMEWORK WE'VE
DESIGNED. OKAY, SONIA GOING
TURNING OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU.
SONIA RUSSO, WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE,
SO, AS MENTIONED, THIS PILOT IS
SET TO BEGIN IN OCTOBER OF THIS
BUDGET YEAR. AND WHILE WE DO AS
DIRECTOR JOHNSON MENTIONED,
ANTICIPATE THAT ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PILOT WILL
BE AVAILABLE AVAILABLE VERY
SOON. THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS
THAT STILL REMAIN IN TERMS OF
WHAT THE PILOT WILL ENTAIL. SO
SINCE THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
INDICATED AN INTENT TO APPLY FOR
THE PILOT, IT WILL BE IMPORTANT
FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO CONSIDER
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSALS
FOR CALWORKS WITHIN THE CONTEXT
OF THE STATE'S APPLICATION AND
POTENTIAL PARTICIPATION, IF
SELECTED, AND TO ALSO CONSIDER
THE PILOT PARTICIPATION THÀNH
WITH AN EYE TOWARDS THE
CURRENTLY UNKNOWN ELEMENTS OF
THE PILOT. WE THEREFORE
RECOMMEND THAT THE LEGISLATURE
CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL TRADE
OFFS OF PILOT PARTICIPATION,
SUCH AS THE TIME AND EFFORT THAT
PARTICIPATING MAY ENTAIL AS A
STATE, VERSUS THE POTENTIAL
SHORT AND LONG TERME BENEFITS
FOR CALIFORNIA, THE PILOT DOES
SEEM ALIGNED WITH THE RECENT
LEGISLATIVE INTEREST IN
EXPANDING THE OVERALL GOALS OF
THE CALWORKS PROGRAM AND THE
MEASURES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT
IT WITH, AND IT ALSO SEEMS TO BE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHIFT SOME OF
THE STATE'S FOCUS TOWARDS THOSE
OTHER DESIRED OUTCOME MEASURES
OR GOALS. IT MAY PRESENT AN
OPPORTUNITY, AS HAS BEEN
MENTIONED BY DIRECTOR JOHNSON,
TO DEMONSTRATE WHETHER THE
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES TO THE WPWR
MIGHT BE BETTER FOR MEASURING
STATE TANF PROGRAM SUCCESS,
WHICH COULD IN TURN BE
BENEFICIAL FOR CALIFORNIA IN THE
FUTURE. IF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DECIDES TO ADOPT
OTHER MEASURES OUTSIDE OF THE
WPWR OR IN ADDITION TO THE WPWR.
WE THEREFORE WOULD RECOMMEND
THAT THE LEGISLATURE CONSIDER
HOW THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
PROPOSALS, ESPECIALLY THE
PROPOSED REDUCTIONS TO FAMILY
STABILIZATION AS SUBSIDIZED AND
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT, AS HAS
BEEN MENTIONED A NUMBER OF
TIMES, MIGHT IMPACT OUR
APPLICATION THÀNH AND OUR
OVERALL PERFORMANCE WITHIN THE
PILOT. AGAIN, AS HAS BEEN
MENTIONED, ELIMINATING THESE
PROGRAMS MAY LIMIT THE TYPES OF
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES AND
OUTCOMES THAT CALIFORNIA COULD
NOT ONLY HIGHLIGHT IN ITS
APPLICATION FOR THE PILOT, BUT
LONG TERME IF IT WERE TO BE
SELECTED, IF IT WERE TO BE
SELECTED TO PARTICIPATE, HOW WE
MIGHT PERFORM ALONG THOSE
MEASURES, SINCE SOME OF THEM
ALIGN BOTH WITH FAMILY
WELL-BEING AS WELL AS EMPLOYMENT
OUTCOMES. HOWEVER AGAIN, AS HAS
BEEN MENTIONED, WE DON'T HAVE
COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOME
INFORMATION ON THESE PROGRAMS,
SO IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE
EXACTLY HOW SIGNIFICANT OF AN
IMPACT THAT THESE ELIMINATIONS
WOULD HAVE. SORRY. CAN YOU GO
BACK TO THE PART WHERE YOU SAID
SOMETHING REGARDING, WE SHOULD
LEVERAGE, I THINK DO YOU USE
THAT WORD, NO. OPPOSITE. WELL
TRADE OFFS. TRADE OFFS. WAS IT
THE TRADE OFFS? YES, SO
SOMETHING THAT HAS CAUGHT OUR
ATTENTION IS THAT AGAIN, THIS
STARTS IN THIS BUDGET YEAR. IT'S
SET TO BEGIN IN OCTOBER. AND WE
YET WE STILL YET TO HAVE A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PIECES OF
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE PILOT
WILL ENTAIL. SO WE DON'T, AS
DIRECTOR JOHNSON HAD MENTIONED
YET KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE
APPLICATION WILL LOOK LIKE IF
SELECTED TO PARTICIPATE. WILL
ANY COSTS BE BROUGHT ABOUT FROM
PARTICIPATING? WHAT EXACTLY
PARTICIPATING MEANS FOR US AS A
STATE? THERE'S NOT MUCH
INFORMATION AT ALL ABOUT THE
PILOT AND WHAT IT WILL BE LIKE
TO BE A PARTICIPATING STATE. SO
THAT DOES CONCERN US THAT THAT
IS A DECISION THAT WOULD NEED TO
BE MADE BY OCTOBER OF THIS
BUDGET YEAR. OKAY. THANK YOU. IF
I CAN, MADAM CHAIR, I JUST OFFER
THEY DID. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
DID RELEASE A REQUEST FOR
INFORMATION RELATED TO THIS
PILOT. AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES DID RESPOND TO
THAT REQUEST. THEY WERE LOOKING
FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE KINDS
OF THINGS THEY SHOULD THINK
ABOUT. SO WE AGAIN DEMONSTRATED
WHAT OUR WHAT OUR MEASURES LOOK
LIKE AND SOME OPPORTUNITIES. SO
HOPEFULLY THAT WAS AN
INFLUENCING FACTOR AS WE ARE SET
TO LOOK AT THE APPLICATION BUT
DID WANT TO OFFER, DO WE
ANTICIPATE SOME COSTS ASSOCIATED
TO PARTICIPATING IN THIS PILOT?
WE DON'T. I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN
LOOKING CAREFULLY AT, REALLY THE
DATA COMPONENT, AS I MENTIONED,
AS PART OF THE PILOT, THE WORK
PARTICIPATION RATE ISN'T
APPLICABLE TO THE STATES THAT
PARTICIPATE. THEREFORE THE
FISCAL PENALTY WOULDN'T. WHAT WE
REALLY WANT TO UNDERSTAND,
THOUGH, IS KIND OF WHAT HAPPENS
POST PILOT. IS THERE A NEED FOR
DATA ENTRY IN THE CASE THAT WE
HAVE TO RETURN THOSE KIND OF. SO
AGAIN, KIND OF TO BE DETERMINED
AT THIS POINT, NOT HAVING THE
SPECIFIC GUIDANCE, BUT NOT NOT
NECESSARILY ANTICIPATING ANY
SIGNIFICANT COSTS AT THIS STAGE.
SO IF THERE IS ANY COST, THAT
WON'T BE UNTIL THE 2031, 20, 32
TIME TO BE TO BE DETERMINED
AGAIN, PARTLY, PARTLY THAT WE'RE
NOT ANTICIPATING A COST, IS
SOMEWHAT OF AN ASSUMPTION THAT
OUR FRAMEWORK THAT EXISTS WILL
BE VALID. RIGHT. THAT'S PART
THAT'S PART OF WHAT OUR
ASSUMPTION IS IN THAT SPACE. BUT
IN TERMS OF, COST TO THE STATE,
IT, IT ESSENTIALLY ANY PILOT
THAT'S SELECTED WILL NOT BE
SUBJECT TO FISCAL PENALTIES. SO
WE KNOW THAT IF WE ARE SELECTED,
WE WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO FISCAL
PENALTIES RELATED TO THE WORK
PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT. IS
THERE OTHER DATA THAT THEY'RE
ASKING FOR THAT WE DON'T
COLLECT? IS THERE OTHER STEPS OR
PROCESS THINGS THAT WE NEED TO
FIGURE OUT? THAT'S WHAT'S TO BE
DETERMINED IN TERMS OF SEEING
THE FULL APPLICATION. OKAY. AND
THEN, YOU KNOW, IN LOOKING ON
PAGE 19, THE TIME FRAME FOR ALL
OF THIS, THE PILOT OPERATES AND
THE DATA REPORTED DURING 2031,
2032. THAT'S RIGHT. AS WE'RE
LOOKING TO REIMAGINE CALWORKS,
AM I SAFE IN THINKING THAT
CHANGES TO CALWORKS WON'T HAPPEN
UNTIL AFTER THE PILOT IS OVER? I
WOULD SAY THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO
CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH YOU, AS
WE HAVE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS,
IN CONTINUING TO PARTNER THE
ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATURE.
WE'VE BEEN MAKING SOME
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO OUR
PROGRAM, POLICY AREAS LIKE
FAMILY STABILIZATION, WHERE
WE'RE ENSURING THAT FAMILIES
THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN
CALWORKS AND ALSO PART OF THE
CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP SUPPORTS ON.
RIGHT. WE'VE BEEN MAKING FAMILY
STABILIZATION PROGRAM. THAT'S A
FAMILY REUNIFICATION. EXCUSE ME,
EXCUSE ME. FAMILY CIVILIZATIONS
IN MY MIND, RIGHTFULLY SO.
FAMILY REUNIFICATION IS WHAT I
WAS REFERENCING. SO ASSET LIMIT
CHANGES. WE'VE BEEN MAKING A
NUMBER OF POLICY CHANGES
TOGETHER OVER THE LAST SEVERAL
YEARS. WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE AS
WE'RE LEARNING FROM CAL OR AND
OTHERWISE, TO HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. I DON'T THINK IT
AT ALL PROHIBITS US FROM MAKING
CHANGES. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO TURN IT
OVER TO, JOY. MADAM CHAIR? YES,
SENATOR. IF I COULD JUST ASK, SO
THE LAO WAS SAYING, LIKE, WE
DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT'LL BE
IN THIS. AND SO I GUESS, I
GUESS, WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO
THAT? LIKE, RIGHT. BECAUSE WE'RE
ALREADY HAVING TROUBLE
STRUGGLING, RIGHT? WE'RE ALREADY
SAYING WE'RE GOING TO TAKE MONEY
FROM THAT AND ON. AND THAT'S
WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW, THAT WE
PROVIDE AND TRY TO TRY TO
MEASURE FOR OUTCOMES. SOUNDS
LIKE WE STRUGGLE WITH THAT
STILL. AND SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO
APPLY FOR SOMETHING NEW. AND I
GET AFRAID THAT WE'RE CHASING
GRANTS LIKE LIKE NONPROFITS
OFTEN DO. RIGHT. SO THEN YOU
APPLY AND YOU GOT SOMETHING
ELSE. AND THEN THERE'S DIFFERENT
THINGS YOU HAVE TO MEASURE OR,
OR FOCUS ON AND LET SOME OTHER
THINGS GO. AND SO I GUESS MY
QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU RESPOND
TO THAT? AND, AND I HEARD YOU
SAY THAT THE FEDS LIKE OUR
FRAMEWORK. AND SO YOU'RE
THINKING A LOT OF WHAT WE SAY
SHOULD BE WILL BE WHAT WE'RE
MEASURING. BUT LIKE, WHAT DOES
MISSISSIPPI DO? WHO MIGHT BE IN
THERE TOO? AND WE MIGHT FIND
OURSELVES HAVING TO FUND THINGS
THAT AREN'T AS APPLICABLE TO
CALIFORNIA. SURE. THANK YOU FOR
THAT QUESTION, SENATOR. THE
PILOT IS REALLY ABOUT
DEMONSTRATING WHAT SHOULD BE
MEASURED AS A AS A DEMONSTRATE
OF OUTCOMES FOR FAMILIES
EXPERIENCING POVERTY THAT ARE
PARTICIPATING IN THE TANF
PROGRAM. THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE
PILOT IS ABOUT. IT'S ABOUT WHAT
WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE OF OUTCOMES
OUT FOR US? AGAIN, IT'S AN
ADDITION TO WORK RIGHT, THAT WE
SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THAT
DEMONSTRATE PROGRESS OF THE
INVESTMENT THAT THAT STATES MAKE
IN TANF. SO IT'S NOT NECESSARY
SOMETHING THAT WE'RE SEEKING
DOLLARS OR RESOURCES FOR. IT'S
REALLY ABOUT BEING ABLE TO
DEMONSTRATE THERE'S A WAY IN
WHICH OUR OUR EVALUATIVE
FRAMEWORK, OUR METRICS, OUR
PROCESS IS MUCH MORE
REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT WE'D
EXPECT FAMILIES THAT ARE
PARTICIPATING IN OUR PROGRAM TO
ACHIEVE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
REALLY DEMONSTRATING THROUGH THE
PILOT. IT'S LESS ABOUT,
OBTAINING ADDITIONAL DOLLARS IN
ANY WAY, ETC. IT'S BEING ABLE TO
SAY IT'S NOT JUST WORK, IT'S
WORK AND ALL OF THE MITIGATION
TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE IN WORK.
IT'S ABOUT ATTAINING EDUCATION
THÀNH, IT'S ABOUT ACCESSING
RESOURCES. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
DEMONSTRATING THROUGH THE PILOT.
OUR HOPE TO HOPE TO BE OKAY. SO
YOU THINK IT'S YOU THINK THE
TRADE OFF IS GOOD FOR WOMEN AND
CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY? I
THINK OUR OPPORTUNITY TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT WORK IS NOT THE
ONLY WAY TO DEMONSTRATE SUCCESS
IS A IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO
PURSUE. OKAY MADAM CHAIR,
SENATOR, I MAY HAVE MISSED THIS
BECAUSE I WAS MOMENTARILY
DISTRACTED, BUT EARLIER ON YOU
WERE TALKING ABOUT MEASURE ING
EMPLOYMENT RATES AND WAGE RATES,
AND I ASSUME AMONG ALL OF THE
OTHER LAUDABLE GOALS, ONE IS TO
LIFT FAMILIES AND WAGE EARNERS
OUT OF POVERTY. AND SO I GUESS
MY BASIC QUESTION IS THIS ARE WE
IN THE PILOT, IF THIS IS
APPROPRIATE FOR WHAT YOU'RE
DOING IN THE PILOT, ARE WE GOING
TO TRACK PLACEMENT TRAINING AND
PLACEMENT IN CAREER JOBS OR JUST
TRAINING AND PLACEMENT IN ANY
JOB? IF THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION?
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION,
SENATOR. SO I THINK, YES, WHAT
YOU HEARD ME REFERENCE IN TERMS
OF EMPLOYMENT IS NOT ONLY WHAT
IS THE RATE OF EMPLOYMENT OF
THOSE PARTICIPANTS IN CALWORKS,
WHAT IS THEIR WAGE PROGRESSION?
WHAT IS THEIR EMPLOYMENT RATE
POST EXIT OF CALWORKS? AND THEN
OF COURSE, LOOKING AT SUBSIDIZED
AND UNSUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT.
THOSE ARE ALL METRICS CURRENTLY
THAT WE ARE TRACKING AS PART OF
OUR FRAMEWORK. WE DO HAVE THE
ABILITY, THROUGH OUR PARTNERSHIP
WITH EDD, TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT
THE ACTUAL EMPLOYMENT TYPE. AND
SO THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT
NOT ONLY IS BROUGHT FORWARD
THROUGH THE COUNTY ASSESSMENTS
THAT I REFERENCED AS PART OF THE
FRAMEWORK, BUT SOMETHING THE
STATE COULD BE LOOKING AT TO. SO
WE CAN ACTUALLY SAY TO THE
QUESTIONS EARLIER ON THE PANEL,
WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF JOBS, THE
TYPES OF EMPLOYMENT AND AGAIN,
WHERE WE SEE WAGE PROGRESSION,
FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT DO WE KNOW
ABOUT WHAT MADE THAT SUCCESSFUL
IN TERMS OF THE OPPORTUNITY. SO
WE'LL BE ABLE IT IS AN AGGREGATE
LEVEL, BUT I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE
TO LOOK MORE CLOSELY, CERTAINLY
AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, BUT EVEN
FURTHER TO BE ABLE TO TELL THE
STORY A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARLY
ABOUT WHAT WHAT MADE THAT
OPPORTUNITY SUCCESSFUL? WELL,
ED, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, EDD,
THE EDD IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON
HOW TO IMPLEMENT. I THINK I
CAN'T REMEMBER MY OWN BILL
NUMBERS, BUT I THINK IT'S SENATE
BILL 755. IT HAS TO DO WITH
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND DATA
COLLECTION. AND THE GOVERNOR
SIGNED IT. SO IT IS IN THE
STATUTE AND WE HAVE TO FIGURE
OUT HOW TO MAKE IT WORK. SO
PERHAPS YOU MIGHT WANT TO WHEN
YOU'RE IN YOUR CONVERSATIONS
WITH EDD AND IN THEIR REDESIGN
OF THE INFORMATION THAT THEY
COLLECT FROM EMPLOYERS REGARDING
WORKFORCE NEEDS AND HOW TO MAKE
THE LINES CROSS, MAYBE THAT WILL
HELP YOU IN THE PILOT PROGRAM,
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT NOT ONLY THAT
PEOPLE HAVE JOBS, BUT THEY HAVE
CAREER JOBS BECAUSE THAT'S THE
ONLY WAY TO STOP THE CYCLE.
APPRECIATE THAT. AND GLAD TO
FOLLOW UP WITH THEM ON THAT.
THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU JOY.
HI. WELCOME. YOU MAY BEGIN WITH
YOUR REMARKS. GOOD MORNING. MY
NAME IS JOY PERRON. I'M A SPARK
LEADER FROM PROJECT SPARK FROM
LANEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE. I'M
HERE TO SHARE MY TESTIMONY. I
CALL IT FROM THESE PROGRAMS THAT
HAVE HELPED ME OUT IN MY
DAUGHTER'S. SORRY WHEN I FIRST
WAS FLEEING FROM A BAD
ENVIRONMENT THAT I NEEDED TO GET
MY CHILDREN OUT OF, THEY WERE
THREE AND ONE. I WENT TO THE
WELFARE OFFICE TO GET ON CASH
AID AND FOOD STAMPS TO SEE WHAT
THEY CAN DO TO HELP. I ALSO
ENROLLED IN LANITA COMMUNITY
COLLEGE TO START OFF THIS NEW
LIFE FOR ME AND MY CHILDREN TO
GET A SUCCESSFUL LIFE, IT WAS
GREAT, GOING TO SCHOOL, TRYING
TO GET CHILDCARE AT THE SAME
TIME I WAS HOMELESS, ALTHOUGH
BECAUSE LEAVING FROM THAT
SITUATION, IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT
DEALING WITH MENTAL HEALTH,
TRYING TO GO TO SCHOOL. I WAS
BRINGING MY KIDS TO CLASS
BECAUSE I COULDN'T HAVE TIME TO
FIND CHILDCARE. SO ALL THAT I
WISH I HAD IN ORDER WHILE I WENT
TO THE WELFARE OFFICE, THE FIRST
TIME, SO I WENT BACK IN
DESPERATE NEED OF HOUSING, OF
FINDING A PLACE TO STAY,
WONDERING WHERE WE WERE GOING TO
SLEEP THAT NIGHT. CARS OR A
COUCH AS A FAMILY? SO WENT BACK
TO THE WELFARE OFFICE IN
DESPERATE NEED, PRACTICALLY
CRYING, UNDERWEIGHT UNDER 90
POUNDS, I WAS TRYING MY BEST.
FAILING IN CLASS, TRYING. WE ALL
YOU DO IS TRYING TO TRY TO DO A
BETTER LIFE. THAT'S WHAT WE COME
HERE FOR. AND SO THEY TOLD ME
THAT THEY'LL HAVE SOMEONE CALL
ME FOR HOUSING. I WAS VERY
UNSURE. I DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF
HOPE BECAUSE I HEAR STORIES BACK
THEN AND NOW THAT THEY DON'T GET
THE HOUSING HELP AND NO ONE
CALLS THEM, A COUPLE OF WEEKS
LATER, I DID GET A CALL. IT WAS
FAMILY STABILIZATION PROGRAM AND
I WASN'T SURE WHO THEY WERE.
THEY SAID HOUSING AND I DROPPED
EVERYTHING, AND I KNEW THIS WAS
GOING TO BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
ME AND MY CHILDREN. IT WAS
WONDERFUL. A COUPLE OF MONTHS
LATER, WE WERE ABLE TO BE IN AN
APARTMENT. I HAVE DANCE PARTIES.
I WAS FINALLY ABLE TO COOK THEM
FOOD, A WARM DINNER. WE HAD FOOD
STAMPS, BUT THAT WAS JUST A
SURVIVAL. THE CASH WAS JUST A
SURVIVAL. HAVING A PLACE TO STAY
AND BE HOME, BE ABLE TO GO TO
SLEEP FOR MY MENTAL HEALTH. IT
WAS JUST WONDERFUL. BE ABLE TO
DO MY HOMEWORK, GO PUT THEM TO
SLEEP. ALTHOUGH THE SEMESTER
ALREADY ENDED, BY THE TIME I GOT
MY HOUSING, I FOUND MY CLASSES.
IT WAS VERY HARD TO PICK MYSELF
BACK UP, BUT I THANK GOD THAT I
WAS RESILIENT. I WAS ALSO TRYING
SO HARD NOT TO BE SANCTIONED,
TRYING TO STAY ON TOP OF
EVERYTHING, JUGGLING EVERYTHING.
KEEP MY HEAD ABOVE WATER WITH
THESE YOUNG GIRLS THAT I AM
TRYING TO BE A ROLE MODEL FOR.
SO I WENT BACK. I SAID NO, THIS
WAS THE OPPORTUNITY. THIS
HOUSING WAS THE OPPORTUNITIES.
PROGRAMS GAVE ME THE
OPPORTUNITY. SO I'M GOING TO
MAKE GIVE MY CHILDREN THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THEM WHAT
THEY CAN DO. AND SO I WENT BACK.
FAST FORWARD NOW I GOT MY
ASSOCIATE'S IN SCIENCE, WAITING
ON A RADIOLOGY PROGRAM WHILE I
WAIT FOR THE RADIOLOGY PROGRAM,
NOT WASTING ANY TIME ON THESE
PROGRAMS. I'M WORKING ON MY
KINESIOLOGY TO TRANSFER FOR
BACHELOR'S DEGREE, AND I'M NOT
STOPPING. I'M ENCOURAGING MY
CHILDREN. I GREW UP IN POVERTY
MYSELF, AND I NEVER KNEW THESE
RESOURCES. MY FAMILY, MY PARENTS
DIDN'T GET THESE RESOURCES. THEY
DIDN'T KNOW OF THEM. AND NOW
THAT I KNOW OF THEM, I'M SHARING
WITH MY CHILDREN. HEY, YOU COULD
BE SOMEBODY YOU COULD SPEAK AT
CAPITOL HILL. MY CHILDREN CAME
WITH ME LAST, LAST TIME I WAS
HERE. AND THEY WERE AMAZED THAT
THIS IS WHERE WE COULD BE,
PROBABLY DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE
OUR NAME. BRING THEM THIS TIME.
NO, I DIDN'T, IT WAS A LITTLE
STRESSFUL, BUT WE STILL MADE IT.
AND THEY GOT TO SEE AND PROBABLY
DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE HER NAME ON
IT. YES WE GREW UP IN IT, BUT WE
ARE ADVOCATES. THEY ARE GOING TO
BE ADVOCATES, CHANGING TWO
GENERATIONS AT A TIME. FAILING
THOSE CLASSES. I DIDN'T KNOW
THAT I WAS GOING TO KEEP GOING
IF IT WAS UP FOR THE HOUSING. I
HAD HOUSING THEY GAVE ME,
RESOURCES THEY KEPT THAT GAVE ME
THE RESILIENT TO KEEP GOING.
JOY, TELL ME MORE ABOUT THE
SANCTIONS, THE SANCTIONS, WHAT
THAT DOES TO YOU. IT'S VERY
NERVE WRACKING. SO IF YOU'RE NOT
MEETING YOUR HOURS, THE WELFARE
TO WORK IS ONE OF THE EMPLOYMENT
ACTIVITIES THAT YOU DO. AND YOU
GET A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF HOURS
WITH ME. MY CHILDREN ARE UNDER
AGE, SO I ONLY HAD TO DO 20
HOURS, BUT IT'S STILL NERVE
WRACKING WHEN YOU'RE YOU WERE
HOMELESS AND YOU DON'T HAVE
CHILDCARE AND YOU'RE TRYING TO
JUGGLE ALL THESE THINGS AT ONCE
AND I WAS SO STRESSED OUT CRYING
, CALLING MY ELDERLY WORKER,
PLEASE, I'M SORRY. LIFE IS
HAPPENING. I'M TRYING TO GET MY
PAPERWORK TURNED IN. PLEASE
DON'T CUT ME. AND SO IT WAS JUST
ANOTHER THING TO HAVE TO WORRY
ABOUT, TO STRESS ABOUT WHEN
YOU'RE YOUR MAIN FOCUS SHOULD BE
ON THE SUCCESSFUL LIFE THAT
YOU'RE MAKING AND THE PATH THAT
YOU'RE TAKING. SO BEING
SANCTIONED AND I THANK GOD I WAS
NEVER THANK GOD I WAS ABLE TO
GET AND TALK WITH MY WORKERS AND
MAKE IT HAPPEN. BUT THERE ARE A
LOT OF CASES AT THE SCHOOL,
LANEY COLLEGE, EVEN. THEY'RE
THEY'RE SCARED OF BEING
SANCTIONED. THEY CAN'T DO IT,
RIGHT. YEAH. IT'S EVEN THE FEAR
AND I HEAR A LOT OF FEAR. AND SO
THEY'RE LIKE, WE CAN'T DO THIS
ANYMORE. WE HAVE TO GO GET A
JOB. WE'RE NOT GOING TO ABLE TO
DO WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO DO,
BECAUSE THEY'RE SCARED. THERE'S
THE FEAR, AND THERE SHOULDN'T BE
ANY FEAR WHEN THERE'S RESOURCES,
THEY SHOULD BE HELP. WE
SHOULDN'T BE HURTING WHILE WE'RE
GETTING THE HELP, FINAL
THOUGHTS? JOY. ANY FINAL
THOUGHTS? MAYBE GETTING HELP BY
THE SUPPORTING BY THE COUNTIES
REALLY SUPPORTING THESE PROGRAMS
AND USING WHAT THEY NEED FOR
THEIR. YEAH. THANK YOU SO MUCH I
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU FOR
SHARING YOUR STORY. I KNOW IT
TAKES A LOT ROOM OF STRANGERS TO
SHARE WHAT YOU'VE GONE THROUGH
AND YOUR BRAVERY. I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOU COMING TODAY.
THANK YOU, I FOUND IT. AND WHEN
WE WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT
THIS, I WAS REMINDED OF SEVERAL
REPORTS THAT SOMETIMES HAVE TO
BE SUBMITTED TO US. AND I THINK
IN THE FIRST DEPARTMENT TODAY ON
CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, THERE
WAS A REPORT THAT WAS DUE MARCH,
AND WE'RE NOW GETTING INTO MAY,
BUT NO ONE GETS SANCTIONED HERE.
WE DON'T GET SANCTIONED. RIGHT.
IT JUST MAYBE A COUPLE OF WORDS
FROM THE LEGISLATORS. WE'LL SAY
SOME STUFF BUT THEY DON'T GET
SANCTIONED. AND THEN WE'LL GO.
WE'LL GET THE REPORT LATER. WHY
ARE WE SANCTIONING IN OUR MOST
VULNERABLE, YOU KNOW, AND THIS
PILOT PROGRAM DIRECTOR, YOU HIT
IT ON THE NOTE. IT'S SUCH A
GREAT OPPORTUNITY. RIGHT. BUT I
DON'T WANT A REPORT JUST TO HAVE
A REPORT. RIGHT. AND I DON'T
THINK YOU WANT THAT EITHER. LIKE
THE ACTION BEHIND IT TO REALLY
REIMAGINE AND STEP AWAY FROM A
PUNITIVE APPROACH. I THINK FOR
EVERYTHING IN CALIFORNIA, WE'RE
REALLY STEPPING AWAY FROM THIS
PUNITIVE APPROACH BECAUSE
SANCTIONS, WHETHER THEY'RE NOT
COMING DOWN, CREATES SUCH
ANXIETY, AND FEAR IN THE
INDIVIDUAL IS WHAT I HEARD FROM
YOU, JOY. AND I DON'T WANT TO
PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT
THAT'S WHAT I HEAR. I HEARD FROM
YOU, AND I HEARD I HEAR FROM A
LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE IN THAT, IN
THAT SPACE. YES. THANK YOU.
YEAH. MR. ANDREW. OH, SO GO
AHEAD, SENATOR, I JUST HAVE AN
OFFSET QUESTION. YOUR STORY IS
TREMENDOUS, AND I THANK YOU FOR
BEING THAT PERSON WHO, EXCELS
BEYOND THE BARRIERS, AND, AND I
DON'T SAY I DON'T SAY DEALS WITH
LIFE. THAT'S THAT'S A HORRIBLE
THING TO SAY. BUT YOU EXCELLED
BEYOND BARRIERS TO BE A ROLE
MODEL FOR YOUR GIRLS. AND THAT
SPEAKS VOLUMES OF WHO YOU ARE.
SO, AND I AGREE WITH THE CHAIR
ON THE SANCTIONS WITH I DON'T
WANT TO SAY SOMEONE LIKE YOU. IT
IS REALLY, TRYING TO CHANGE YOUR
LIFE. HOW DO YOU WHERE'S THE
BALANCE? LIKE SO. AND THE ONLY
REASON I'M ASKING YOU THIS
QUESTION IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE
LIVED EXPERIENCE. NONE OF US UP
HERE HAVE THAT LIVED EXPERIENCE.
SO AND YOU MENTIONED THAT WHEN
YOU TALK TO OTHER PARENTS IN
THAT SITUATION AT SCHOOL, THAT
THE FEAR OF BEING SANCTIONED OR
BEING CUT OFF OR NOT HAVING THIS
BECAUSE NOT MEETING A GOAL AND,
AND THEN THE CHAIR MADE THE
COMMENT, WELL, WE DON'T MEET IT.
WE JUST MEET IT NEXT WEEK. YOU
KNOW, SO BUT WHERE'S THE BALANCE
FOR THE PEOPLE WHO MAY TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THIS SYSTEM AND
NEED THOSE SANCTIONS IN ORDER TO
KEEP THEM ON THE TRACK? YOU ARE
OBVIOUSLY, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY
OVERACHIEVER, BUT YOU ARE YOU
YOU ARE MEETING THOSE STANDARDS.
YOU'RE SETTING A ROLE. ROLE
MODEL OF ME. SELF-MOTIVATED?
YES. SELF-MOTIVATED YOU'RE
SELF-MOTIVATED AND YOU ARE DOING
THESE THINGS AND YOU'RE DOING IT
RIGHT. AND THAT'S EVIDENT BY
WHAT YOU JUST SAID. AND I
APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE I,
MY MOM WAS A SINGLE MOM AND
RAISED FIVE KIDS. WE USED TO
STEAL POTATOES OUT OF THE FARM
FIELDS TO EAT, RIGHT. SHE'D MAKE
POTATO SOUP, I GET IT. NEVER
HOMELESS, BUT GET IT, SO I GUESS
MY THING IS, IS THAT WHAT. HOW
DO YOU HOW DO YOU HOW DO I HOW
DO I BALANCE AS A LEGISLATOR THE
ISSUE THAT YOU'RE FACING,
BECAUSE YOU'RE BEING
SELF-MOTIVATED, BUT THEN THE
PERSON WHO IS NOT DOING WHAT
YOU'RE DOING AND DOESN'T REALLY
IT'S JUST INTERESTED IN WHAT
THEY'RE GETTING, IF THAT MAKES
SENSE. IS THERE A BALANCE FROM
YOUR PERSPECTIVE, FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD SAY I HAD A
LOT. I AM GRATEFUL FOR THE FOR
THE WORKERS THAT I DID HAVE, THE
ELIGIBILITY WORKERS, THE ONES
THAT TOOK ON MY CASE BECAUSE YOU
HEAR A LOT OF CASE WORKERS THAT
ARE NOT PRESENT OR THEY'RE TOO
OVERWHELMED IN SITUATIONS WHERE
THEY'RE THEY SEE THEY THEY GET
SO MANY EMAILS COMING IN AND
THEY DON'T THEY MIGHT MISS IT OR
THEN THAT PERSON MIGHT GET
SANCTIONED, BUT THEY TURNED IN
THE WORK OR THEY'RE TRYING TO
COMMUNICATE WITH THEM. IT WITH
MY SITUATION, I WAS ABLE TO I
WAS BLESSED ENOUGH TO BE
COMMUNICATED, GET GREAT
COMMUNICATION. AND IF I DIDN'T
HAVE A GOOD WORKER, I WENT BACK
AND WAS LIKE, WHAT'S GOING ON?
AND THEY WOULD SWITCH THEM
AROUND AND YOU WOULD HEAR IT GET
SWITCHED AROUND. I WOULD THINK
CHECKING UP ON THEM, HAVING IT
LIKE A WHOLE PACKAGE, LIKE
PRETTY MUCH SAYING LIKE, OKAY,
HOUSING, YOU GOT THIS. MAKING
SURE THEY'RE HOUSED AND CHILD
CARE ALL THAT AND THEN HAVE THEM
GO INTO THE WORKFORCE OR
ACTIVITY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
DO. SENATOR, YOU WANT TO
REPHRASE? MAYBE YEAH. SO YEAH.
SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING. AND I, I, AND THE REASON
WHY I'M DOING THIS IS BECAUSE
YOU LEARN THINGS, RIGHT? I DID A
HUMAN TRAFFICKING BILL LAST
YEAR, AND WHEN I HEAR FOR LIVED
EXPERIENCE EXPERTS OR, YOU KNOW,
THE PEOPLE THAT WENT THROUGH
THAT, I LEARNED THINGS THAT I
NEVER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT
ASKING. AND WHEN I WAS LISTENING
TO YOUR TESTIMONY AND THEN THE
CHAIRS FOLLOW UP AND THE WAY SHE
PHRASED IT, SO MY CONCERN IS THE
CHAIR, VERY POWERFUL CHAIR IS
GOING TO GO NO SANCTIONS FOR
ANYBODY, BUT THAT DOESN'T
BALANCE THE SYSTEM BECAUSE I
THINK THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE
THAT WILL NOT BE THE
SELF-MOTIVATED PERSON THAT YOU
ARE. AND SO HOW FROM YOUR
PERSPECTIVE, I'M SURE YOU KNOW,
PEOPLE IN BOTH SIDES OF THAT
WORLD. YES. OKAY. REALLY. SO IN
SO HOW AS WE AS LEGISLATORS, CAN
WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE
SANCTIONS THAT PUT YOU IN THAT
POSITION? BUT KEEP THE SANCTIONS
FOR THE PEOPLE WHO NEED THOSE TO
MAKE THEM ACT? IF THAT MAKES
SENSE, FROM YOUR WORLD? I MEAN,
FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, I FEEL LIKE FROM
2020, EVERYTHING KIND OF LIKE
GOT CRAZY AND THEY KIND OF NEED
TO RE EVALUATE ALL THE CASES TO
MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS ELIGIBLE
FOR THESE CALWORKS SOME PEOPLE
MIGHT NOT BE ELIGIBLE ANYMORE.
MAYBE THAT'S THE CASE OF IT,
BEING SANCTIONED. I YEAH, I
UNDERSTAND LIKE SOME ARE TRYING
WE'RE TRYING OUR BEST AND SOME
ARE LACKING, TO FIGURE OUT THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT, I THINK
EVERYBODY JUST THE ONES THAT ARE
LACKING, THEY JUST DON'T HAVE
THE MOTIVATION OR THE KNOWLEDGE
OF WHAT THEY CAN BE OR WHAT THEY
CAN DO. HOW DO WE MOTIVATE THEM
TO BE LIKE YOU? YOU'RE GOING TO
BE YOU'RE GOING TO SIT ON THIS
DIET KNOWING THESE RESOURCES. I
GOING TO SCHOOL, I DIDN'T KNOW
OF GOING TO SCHOOL, EVER GOING
TO GET A BACHELOR'S EVEN TO BE
HERE. I JUST THOUGHT HIGH SCHOOL
DIPLOMA. OKAY, COOL. BUT THEY
SAID, OH, YOU CAN GET TO WORK OR
GO TO SCHOOL. I'M LIKE? LET ME,
LET ME TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
I DIDN'T REALIZE HOW MUCH MORE
IN SCHOOL THAT I CAN LEARN. YES,
I WANT TO BE A RADIOLOGY, BUT I
LOVE NONPROFIT THINGS. BUT I
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT AREA THAT COULD
HAVE WENT THROUGH OR WHATEVER.
SO JUST KNOWING WHAT THE
POSSIBILITIES IS, MAYBE TELLING
THEM ABOUT SCHOOL, WHAT? ASKING
THEM QUESTIONS OR WHAT THEY DO
WANT TO DO, THOSE SANCTIONS. I
FEEL, HAPPEN BECAUSE WE'RE NOT
MOTIVATED OURSELVES TO DO IT, DO
SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO, AND
THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT WELL. YOU
MAKE THEM, HEY, YOU HAVE TO
HURRY UP AND PICK SOMETHING.
THEY'RE JUST GOING TO PICK
SOMETHING AND THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO ENJOY IT BECAUSE IT WAS
FORCED. SO SO GIVING SOMETHING
THEY VISUALIZED. YES.
INDIVIDUALIZED. YEAH BEFORE I'M
GOING TO TURN TO LIKE AN IAP.
LIKE AN INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM. LIKE
WHAT DO YOU THEY DO THAT FOR? I
GUESS, AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE OF MY
EXPERIENCE. RIGHT. THEY DO THAT
WITH THE DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED COMMUNITY. LIKE WHAT DO
YOU WANT TO DO? BUT THAT'S THE
GOAL OF REIMAGINING CALWORKS.
OKAY, SO WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?
I'M NOT JUST GOING TO PUT YOU
HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO
LIKE IT. YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND
THERE 40 HOURS A WEEK. SO I GET
THAT, I WANT YOU, I WANT TO SAY
SOMETHING TO YOU THAT IS
PROBABLY NOT APPROPRIATE AT THIS
COMMITTEE, SO MAYBE NOT JUST
SAY, YEAH, WE CAN MEET OUTSIDE,
NOT. NO, I'M JUST KIDDING. I
JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT LOOK.
SO MY MOM WAS A SINGLE MOM. SHE
WORKED IN THE SHEDS. WE USED TO
STEAL POTATOES OUT OF THE FIELD.
I DON'T HAVE A COLLEGE DEGREE. I
DROPPED OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL AND
WENT TO A CONTINUATION HIGH
SCHOOL. AND THEN FINALLY WENT
BACK. AND I'M ONE OF 40IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO DON'T
YOU EVER LET ANYBODY TELL YOU
THAT YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING
BECAUSE YOU CAN. THAT WAS
APPROPRIATE, I LIKE THAT. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. AND I AGREE, I
LISTENING AND TO ALL THESE
PANELS AND EVERYTHING AND I SEE
YOU GROW UP. YOUR GENERATIONS
GROW UP AFTER YOU WHEN WE SEE
THIS. AND I'M JUST GRATEFUL THAT
MY CHILDREN ARE ABLE TO SEE ME
SO THEY CAN SEE THEM ONE DAY AT
CAPITOL HILL. YOU GUYS CAN BE
THAT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE FROM
SOMEONE SUPER TOUGH HIGH TO BE
THIS AND THIS. PRAISE GOD FOR
THE PERSON YOU ARE FOR YOUR
CHILDREN. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
BEFORE I GO OVER TO SENATOR
EGGMAN, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE,
SENATOR GROVE, THERE WAS A
REPORT BACK IN APRIL OF 2023,
AND THIS REPORT FOUND IN OUR
MEETING VERBATIM, FOUND THAT
SANCTIONS WHICH PENALIZED
CALWORKS PARENTS WHO ARE NOT
MEETING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS BY
REDUCING THEIR MONTHLY GRANTS,
HAVE THE EFFECT OF PUSHING ABOUT
60,000 CHILDREN PER MONTH.
DEEPER INTO POVERTY. 60,000. SO
I THINK WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO
HAVE THE 10. I MEAN, I GOT THAT
IN THE MILITARY IS ALWAYS THE
10% THAT MESSES UP FOR EVERYONE,
RIGHT? BUT I THINK 60,000
CHILDREN PER MONTH TO POVERTY IS
OUTWEIGHS, AT LEAST IN MY
OPINION, OUTWEIGHS, IF I CAN
ADD, NOT REMOVING. WE'RE
PUNISHING THE CHILDREN. NOT ONLY
THE MOTHER. WE ALL THINKING JUST
THE MOTHER. WE'RE PUNISHING THE
SANCTION. AND YOU'RE PUNISHING
THE CHILDREN AS WELL WHEN YOU
SANCTION SENATOR EGGMAN. I WAS
JUST GOING TO JUST ON THIS VERY
TOPIC. I MEAN, JUST TO CONTINUE
SAYING. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING, BECAUSE I THINK I THINK
SENATOR GROVE IS GETTING TO AN
ISSUE. RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT'S
SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO
YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO ABUSE
THE SYSTEM, RIGHT? AND NOT THAT
BASIC INCOME IS ANY KIND OF
ABUSE. NOBODY'S GETTING RICH,
RIGHT? NOBODY'S GETTING RICH
HERE. AND I THINK WE ALL WE ALL
SHOULD SAY IT'S NOT PEOPLE
AREN'T GETTING RICH. BUT I THINK
SO. SHE WAS TRYING TO GET AT
THAT. BUT WHAT I THINK YOU'RE
TRYING TO SAY IS WITH
INDIVIDUALIZED CARE AND IEP OR
REIMAGINING CALWORKS, THAT
PEOPLE WILL BE MOTIVATED TO DO
THEIR VERY BEST AND THE THREAT
OF SANCTIONS OR BEING
SANCTIONED. OFTENTIMES COMES
FROM NOT KNOWING THAT THEY COULD
BE GOING INTO RADIOLOGY AND
WORKING AT THE TACO BELL AND
THEN LIKE, OH, THAT'S I MEAN,
AND THAT'S HARD TO GET TO AND
ALL OF THOSE THINGS. SO I THINK
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF WE
PROVIDE PEOPLE MORE OF WHAT THEY
ACTUALLY NEED THAT IMPROVES
THEIR LIVES, THEN WE'LL FIND A
LOT MORE ADHERENCE TO THE PLANS.
YES, YES. OKAY. AND THANK YOU.
ALSO, YOU HAVE CHANGED TO
GENERATIONS. HEY. THANK YOU.
MAYBE EVEN YOUR PARENTS, IF
THEY'RE STILL LIVING, IF THEY'RE
NOT, GOD BLESS HER SOUL. BUT BUT
I'M SURE YOU HELP MAKE THEIR END
FEEL SO MUCH BETTER SEEING HOW
WELL YOU'RE DOING. YES, YES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I KNOW,
SENATOR EGGMAN. THEY'RE NOT NOT
GETTING RICH. IT'S $1,171 A
MONTH. THAT'S TO SURVIVE. TAKE
SOME MORE. OKAY. ANDREW, WE'RE
GOING TO TURN TO YOU NOW. GREAT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. ANDREW SHANE FROM GRACE
AND POVERTY, CALIFORNIA, LOOK,
I'LL BE BRIEF, I JUST THINK WHEN
YOU HEAR DIRECTOR JOHNSON TALK
ABOUT THIS, IT'S CLEAR WHERE THE
DEPARTMENT'S PASSION AND
DIRECTION LIES. AND WE SHARE
THEIR ENTHUSIASM AND THEIR
DISPOSITION THAT CALIFORNIA IS
WELL POSITIONED. GIVEN THE
REFORMS MADE BY CAL OR CALWORKS
2.0 AND OTHERS. THE PILOTS, IT'S
HARD TO OVEREMPHASIZE, GIVEN THE
SEVERITY OF THE CONVERSATION
THAT WE JUST HAD. AND I REALLY
APPLAUD ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE CUTS. THE PILOTS REALLY ARE
A GENERATIONAL OPPORTUNITY. IT'S
NOT OVERSTATING IT. IT IS THE
FIRST TIME SINCE 1996 THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO
ALLOW UP TO FIVE STATES. THAT'S
IN THE STATUTE. SO IT'S MAX OF
FIVE, TO SET ASIDE THE WAIVER,
WHICH THE DATA SIMPLY SHOW HAS
FAILED. AND I'M NOT GOING TO GET
INTO THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S
VERY CLEAR. AND JUST ONE EXAMPLE
IS THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY FINALLY
RECOGNIZE THE UNPAID CAREGIVING
WORK THAT'S SO OFTEN DONE BY LOW
INCOME WOMEN OF COLOR, BUT HAS
BEEN ARBITRARILY EXCLUDED UNDER
TANF. SO WE HAVE EVERY CHANCE TO
LEAD AND NO REASON NOT TO
MAXIMIZE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE POLICY CHANGES TO ENSURE A
SUCCESSFUL PILOT AND IMPROVE
FAMILY OUTCOMES. AND I WOULD
JUST SAY THAT AS MANY, PIECES OF
PROGRESS HAVE BEEN MADE, WE HAVE
TO BE CLEAR EYED ABOUT THE
PROGRAM WE HAVE TODAY, AS WELL
AS WHAT THE CUTS WOULD DO. I'M
NOT GOING TO BELABOR THAT.
OBVIOUSLY, I WOULD JUST POINT TO
THE REPORT THAT SPARC PUT OUT
LAST FALL CALLED, DESIGNED TO
KEEP YOU DOWN THE FIRST COUPLE
PAGES AS DIRECTOR JOHNSON AND
MISS KABANSKY EARLIER NOTED,
CALIFORNIA DOES HAVE A MUCH,
MUCH STRONGER TANF PROGRAM THAN
NEARLY ANY OTHER STATE, AND
EVERY OTHER PAGE IS ABOUT HOW WE
HAVE MAINTAINED AND IN FACT
CHOSEN SEVERAL POLICIES THAT ARE
DESIGNED TO KEEP YOU DOWN, THAT
ARE THAT ARE HOLDING BACK
STUDENT PARENTS AND THE REST OF
THE CASELOAD. I JUST WANT TO
BRIEFLY COMMENT ON WHY WE CANNOT
APPLY ON CAL OR AND 2.0 ALONE.
YES. THE FRAMEWORK OF CAL OR
MEASUREMENTS WILL BE IN PLACE,
BUT WE WILL BE MEASURING THE
FLAWS IN THE PROGRAM WE HAVE
TODAY. OR IF THE CUTS ARE
ALLOWED TO HAPPEN, EVEN
REVERSIONS ON THOSE. AND SOME OF
THE OUTCOME MEASURES THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS
IDENTIFIED ARE EMPLOYMENT AND
EARNINGS. SO AGAIN, SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT ON THAT END OF THE
SPECTRUM. AND THEN I'M NOT
TRYING TO BE CHEEKY. LITERALLY
FAMILY STABILIZATION OR FAMILY
STABILITY AND WELL-BEING ARE
SOME OF THE TO BE DETERMINED
OUTCOMES. AND SO IN TAKING AWAY
POTENTIALLY THE FAMILY
STABILIZATION PROGRAM AND THE
TOTALITY OF THE CUTS, I THINK IT
IS FAIR TO SAY THAT WE WILL SEE,
NOT THE, THE, THE RESULTS IN
FIVE YEARS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO
SEE. SO WHAT ARE THOSE POLICY
CHANGES? WE HAVE A SHARED
LANGUAGE WITH WITH THE
DEPARTMENT AND STAKEHOLDERS. AND
I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT EITHER
AS A PART OF OR IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE PILOT, BECAUSE AGAIN,
WITH ONLY FIVE STATES, THERE IS
NO GUARANTEED OUTCOME, THIS
BUDGET THOUGH, MUST TAKE ACTION.
AND MANY OF THE CHANGES THAT I'M
TALKING ABOUT ARE SIMPLY
REARRANGING EXISTING PROCESSES
TO BE FAMILY SUPPORTED AND
FAMILY CENTERED, FIRST, QUITE
FRANKLY, TO STOP PUNISHING
FAMILIES AND FOLLOW THE SCIENCE.
AND SO, SENATOR, I APPRECIATE
YOUR QUESTIONS EARLIER. WHAT I
WOULD SAY BRIEFLY IS THAT IN
TERMS OF THE SANCTION POLICY,
WE'RE ONLY TRYING TO ACHIEVE
THAT BALANCE. FEDERAL LAW
REQUIRES A SANCTION POLICY FOR
THOSE PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE
REFUSING TO PARTICIPATE. SO IF
THERE IS SOMEONE IN THAT
SITUATION, WE CAN, MUST AND
STILL WILL CONTINUE TO APPLY
THAT SANCTION. WE HAVE, HOWEVER,
SEVERAL PIECES. MOST NOTABLY, I
WOULD JUST SAY WE HAVE FAILS TO
THAT LANGUAGE, WHICH MEANS THAT
FOR ALL THE PIECES YOU TALKED
ABOUT, IF SOMEONE'S NOT
INFORMED, IF THEY CAN'T GET A
HOLD OF THEIR WORKER, IF THE
PAPERWORK IS LOST, ALL THE SORT
OF CHURN STYLE BUREAUCRATIC
ISSUES THAT CAN STILL LEAD TO A
SANCTION BECAUSE WE HAVE FAILS
TO ON THE BOOKS, EVEN WHEN
SOMEONE IS IN GOOD FAITH TRYING
TO PARTICIPATE. SECOND, TO PLACE
FAMILIES AT THE CENTER OF THE
PROGRAM AND TRUST MOTHERS AGAIN,
ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY BLACK AND
BROWN MOTHERS TO DETERMINE THEIR
PATHWAY TO SUCCESS. AND SENATOR
GROVE, YOU HIT THIS ON THE HEAD
EARLIER. WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE REMOVING
ARTIFICIAL BARRIERS LIKE THE
HOURS REQUIREMENTS LIKE UPFRONT
JOB SEARCH, LIKE THE
RESTRICTIONS ON ACTIVITIES SO
THAT WE CAN HAVE SELF-DETERMINED
PATHWAYS SO THAT FOLKS ARE ABLE
TO DO WHAT IS THEY KNOW IS BEST
FOR THEIR THEIR CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES. IF THEY NEED MORE IN
DEPTH ASSISTANCE, OF COURSE,
DEEPER ENGAGEMENT ON BARRIER
REMOVAL AND ON, APPRAISAL AND
ASSESSMENT AT THIRD TO EXPAND
FAMILY STABILIZATION PROGRAM. I
KNOW THAT'S KIND OF A CLUNKER
GIVEN THE CURRENT CONVERSATION,
BUT I WOULD JUST SAY WE WERE ON
RECORD LAST YEAR. WE ALREADY
IDENTIFIED THIS AS ONE OF THE
MOST EFFECTIVE PARTS OF THE
PROGRAM. I WON'T BELABOR IT, BUT
WE BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE EXPANDED
TO ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS HAVE TO
START WRAPPING UP. YEP. OKAY, SO
THE LAST TWO ARE TO IMPROVE
ACCESS TO SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.
WE JUST HEARD FROM JOY THAT EVEN
THOUGH WE HAVE STAGE ONE FROM
DAY ONE ON THE BOOKS, THAT
PARENTS ARE STILL BRINGING THEIR
KIDS TO CLASSES. AND THEN, OF
COURSE, TO REPEAL THE PENALTY
PASS THROUGH, WE HEAR FROM
COUNTIES THEMSELVES THAT, OF
COURSE, HAVING THAT THREAT OF
THE PENALTY IS A BARRIER TO THE
CULTURE CHANGE WE NEED. I WOULD
JUST IN CLOSING, SAY THAT WE
JUST SAW MORE DATA FROM THE
GUARANTEED INCOME THAT PROVIDING
BASIC CASH INCOME ALMOST DOUBLED
EMPLOYMENT IN ALBUQUERQUE,
FOLLOWING ON SAINT PAUL. THE
DATA JUST CONTINUES TO SHOW THAT
PROVIDING BASIC INCOME WITHOUT
STIGMA, WITHOUT STRINGS, IS THE
PATHWAY FOR OUT OF POVERTY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, ANDREW, THAT
WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ONE OF
MY QUESTIONS TO YOU, DIRECTOR.
THE FOUR POINTS OF THE TRAILER,
BILL LANGUAGE HAS THE DEPARTMENT
HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM, THE
STAKEHOLDER PROPOSAL TO USE
FEDERAL. YES HAVE YOU HAD A
CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE FOUR
DIFFERENT POINTS? WE'RE
CURRENTLY, IN REVIEW OF THE
PROPOSALS THAT ARE COMING
FORWARD. YEAH. MY, MY CURIOSITY
IS GUIDING ME, IS TAKING ME TO
THE PART ON THE FAMILY
SANCTIONS, TO FEDERAL
REQUIREMENTS. THAT PART, WOULD
YOU SAY WE HAVE ADDITIONAL,
STRICTER, SANCTIONS THAN THE
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS? I WOULD
SAY THAT, YES, OUR OUR
REQUIREMENTS IN CALIFORNIA ARE
EXCEED THE MINIMUM THAT ARE IN
THE FEDERAL LAW, AND JUST TO
AGAIN, I REFERENCED THAT THIS
WAS AN AREA OF PARTICULAR
INTEREST IN OUR, IN OUR
WORKGROUP CONVERSATIONS RELATED
TO ALTERNATIVES TO, TO WPWR. I
THINK WE WANT TO FULLY
UNDERSTAND, WITH THE APPLICATION
COMING FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, JUST HOW BROAD
THEY'RE WILLING TO GO IN TERMS
OF POLICY CHANGE. AND THAT'S
ANOTHER TO BE DETERMINED. RIGHT.
IS THIS IS IT REALLY JUST ABOUT
THE EVALUATION OUTCOMES, OR WILL
WE ACTUALLY HAVE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR POLICY CHANGE WITHIN THE
CONSTRUCT OF THE PILOT, SO THAT
THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT
WE'LL BE LOOKING TOWARDS? OKAY.
MAY I MADAM CHAIR, JUST I WANT
TO BRIEFLY POINT OUT THAT THE
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION THAT
DIRECTOR JOHNSON PREVIOUSLY
POINTED TO DID ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, HHS, IS
RECOGNIZING THAT MAXIMUM FAMILY
GRANT, WHICH WE'VE GOTTEN RID OF
AND STATE SANCTIONED POLICIES
ARE PROVEN BARRIERS TO FAMILY
OUTCOMES AND SUCCESS. AND SO,
WHETHER AGAIN, THAT'S WHY WE
SAY, IN CONJUNCTION WITH OR AS A
PART OF THE PILOT APPLICATION,
OKAY. AND THEN I THINK YOU
MENTIONED IT, SENATOR GROVE, YOU
MENTIONED IPE. WHEN WE DEAL WITH
THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES. NO,
NO, I KNOW, BUT YOUR POINT, YOUR
NUMBER TWO IS KIND OF RELATED TO
THAT. TALK TO US. TALK TO US
ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT'S PUSH
TOWARDS THIS KIND OF IDEA. SURE,
SURE. SO WHAT'S CURRENTLY
REQUIRED RIGHT NOW FOR
PARTICIPANTS IN CALWORKS IS THE
WELFARE TO WORK PLAN. THAT'S THE
THAT'S THE NAME OF THE PLAN, AND
I THINK AS YOU HEARD REFERENCED
IN EARLIER PANELS TWO. RIGHT.
IT'S A COMBINATION OF THE
CALWORKS 2.0 EFFORT, WHICH I
WILL SUMMARIZE VERY SIMPLY,
SIMPLY AS LISTENING TO THE
PERSON IN FRONT OF YOU. WHAT ARE
THE GOALS THAT THEY HAVE? RIGHT
TO THE TO THE POINTS THAT ARE
BEING MADE AND HAVE BEEN MADE
OF? THESE ARE THE OPTIONS YOU
HAVE VERSUS LET'S TALK ABOUT
WHAT OPPORTUNITIES EXIST AND
WHAT INTERESTS YOU. RIGHT. AND
SO I THINK THAT'S THE THAT'S THE
KEY CHANGE IN THAT EFFORT THAT
WE CONTINUE TO STRIVE TOWARDS.
AND THAT IN FACT, YOU KNOW,
THROUGH THE CONVERSATIONS THAT
WE HAD RELATED TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FRAMEWORK
THAT A FAMILY LIKE OWNS AND
EMBRACES WHAT'S IN THEIR PLAN.
IT'S NOT THAT IT'S A MYSTERY OR
THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, THAT
THEY ACTUALLY ARE EXCITED ABOUT
IT. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY
HAVE GOING FORWARD. AND SO
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY OUR INTENT TO
CONTINUE TO BUILD ON THAT EFFORT
, REALLY LOOKING AT WHAT THE
INTEREST IS OF THE FAMILY AND
THE AND THE PERSON THAT WE'RE
SUPPORTING. AND THEN USING OUR
TOOLS TO HELP THEM GET THERE.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE GOAL I'M
GOING TO I'LL TURN TO YOU RIGHT
AFTER SENATOR EGGMAN. I'M GOING
TO THROW A CURVE BALL HERE,
EILEEN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE
PREPARED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION
ON THE COUNTY LEVEL, WHAT
BARRIERS DO WE SEE TO ACCESS TO
CHILDCARE FOR CALWORKS
RECIPIENTS? I'M SORRY, I
ACTUALLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT I AM
PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION
RIGHT NOW. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK
AND CHECK WITH OUR MEMBERS AND
SEE SPECIFICALLY IF THEY HAVE
IDENTIFIED BARRIERS TO CHILD
COUNTY LEVEL PERSPECTIVE. THERE
SHOULDN'T THERE SHOULDN'T BE. I
MEAN, IT'S IT IS AN ENTITLEMENT
AND THERE'S CONTINUOUS
ELIGIBILITY FROM DAY ONE. SO,
OKAY, SONIA IS ITCHING TO ANSWER
THIS. OH, GO FOR IT. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. I APOLOGIZE. THANKS.
HOW YOU GOT IT? SONIA RUSSO WITH
THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
, TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT FOR
THAT, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD
FROM COUNTIES, AS MISS PERRIN
MENTIONED, AWARENESS IS ONE
ELEMENT OF KNOWING ABOUT CHILD
CARE. AND BEING ABLE TO ACCESS
CHILD CARE. COUNTY WORKERS, LACK
OF NØ NØ IN TERMS OF CLIENT.
YEAH. CLIENT AWARENESS, WE OFTEN
HEAR FROM COUNTIES THAT THERE'S
JUST SO MUCH INFORMATION TO
PRESENT WHEN A CLIENT IS COMING
INTO CALWORKS THAT SOME COUNTIES
MAY DECIDE WE'RE GOING TO TALK
ABOUT CHILD CARE ON ANOTHER DAY,
AND IT JUST GETS LOST IN THE
SHUFFLE, SO THAT'S ONE POTENTIAL
ISSUE IN TERMS OF ACCESSIBILITY
AND ANOTHER ITEM THAT HAS BEEN
RAISED BY VARIOUS COUNTIES, I
THINK ESPECIALLY PROBABLY IN THE
RURAL, AREAS OF CALIFORNIA, IS
JUST AVAILABILITY OF CHILD CARE,
WHICH IS A OBVIOUSLY A FAR
BROADER ISSUE THAT MANY OF US
DEAL WITH. BUT IN, IN RURAL
ENVIRONMENTS, THERE ARE JUST TOO
FEW CHILD CARE PROVIDERS IN
GENERAL, SO THEY'RE THEY'RE
EXPERIENCING THE SAME ISSUES
MANY PARENTS EXPERIENCE IN TERMS
OF GETTING INTO A CHILD CARE
PROVIDER DIRECTOR. ANYTHING TO
ADD TO THAT? SURE I'LL JUST SAY,
AS FORMERLY THE CHILD CARE
BRANCH CHIEF AT CDSS, THAT'S
ACTUALLY HOW I ENTERED THE
DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED
REALLY CLOSELY AT THIS QUESTION,
AND WE ACTUALLY SAT DOWN IN MORE
THAN HALF OF THE COUNTIES IN
ORIENTATION TO THE LOUSE
REFERENCE AND POINT HERE. IT IS
OVERWHELMING TO BOTH NEED
SUPPORT AND THEN GET THE 50
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ON A
POWERPOINT IN FRONT OF YOU AND
THEN UNDERSTAND IN TWO WEEKS
FROM NOW, OH, WHAT WAS, YOU
KNOW. RIGHT. SO THE ADDITIONAL
CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE ALWAYS
OFFERING. RIGHT. WHAT SUPPORTS
AND REALLY MAKING SURE THAT THAT
CONVERSATION AND COMMUNICATION
IS HAPPENING BETWEEN WHETHER
IT'S AN ELIGIBILITY WORKER OR
SOCIAL WORKER AND THE FAMILY
THAT THEY'RE SERVING TO REALLY
AGAIN, USE THE TOOLS THAT THEY
HAVE IS A BIG PIECE OF THIS. WE
ACTUALLY ALSO AND JUST
LEGISLATURE ADMINISTRATION HAVE
MADE HISTORIC INVESTMENTS IN
THIS SPACE OVER THE LAST FEW
YEARS, NOT ONLY TO THE POINTS
THAT WERE MADE RELATED TO ACCESS
TO THE ACTUAL SUBSIDY, BUT ALSO
FACILITIES, DOLLARS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE. SO, WE REALLY
HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT CHILD CARE
DESERTS AS AN ISSUE TO BE ABLE
TO ASSURE THAT THAT'S NOT A
BARRIER. AND THEN I WOULD SAY,
WE LOOKED AT THE ISSUE MORE
HOLISTICALLY, TOO, BECAUSE IT'S
A DIFFERENT QUESTION TO SAY
WHO'S ACCESSING CALWORKS STAGE
ONE CHILD CARE AND WHO'S
ACCESSING A CHILD CARE SUBSIDY.
RIGHT. IT CAN BE AN EARLY HEAD
START, HEAD START, A PRESCHOOL
PROGRAM. WE HAVE A MATURE ARRAY.
SO WE HAVE REFINED OUR OWN DATA,
ALSO INCLUDED IN OUR CAL OR
MEASURES TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER
THAT QUESTION MORE HOLISTICALLY,
AS OPPOSED TO JUST ANSWERING
THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM, BUT BUT
AGAIN, I THINK THE OFFERING OF
THE RESOURCE KIND OF ON A
CONSISTENT BASIS AND AS THINGS
COME UP, IS REALLY KEY TO BEING
ABLE TO MAKE SURE FAMILIES HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE
IN IT. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR.
SENATOR EGGMAN, I JUST WANTED TO
GO BACK TO THE ISSUE OF, PROGRAM
FIDELITY, BECAUSE WHEN I HEAR
DIRECTOR JOHNSON TALK ABOUT IT,
I MEAN, THESE ARE FANTASTIC
THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON. BUT
THEN WHEN YOU HEAR FROM THE
LIVED EXPERIENCE, IT DEPENDS ON
THE CASEWORKER. I DIDN'T KNOW, I
DIDN'T GET A CALL BACK. ALL
THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. SO HOW DO
WE ENSURE FIDELITY OF 2.0 DOWN
TO THE TO THE TO THE MICRO ISSUE
LEVEL? APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION
VERY MUCH, SENATOR. AND I THINK
AGAIN OUR FRAMEWORK PUTS US IN
THAT SPACE. SO NOT ONLY WITH OUR
FRAMEWORK OF CAL OR DO WE HAVE A
DIFFERENT ABILITY TO BE
TRANSPARENT ABOUT ACCESS TO THE
REFERRALS. RIGHT. IT'S A
DASHBOARD. IT'S PUBLIC. IT'S ON
OUR WEBSITE RIGHT NOW. AND
AGAIN, YOU CAN LOOK AT IT BY
COUNTY, BUT IT IS THEN REQUIRING
, STATE STAFF WORKING WITH
COUNTY STAFF ON TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT. I WILL
TELL YOU ALWAYS MY BEST DAYS IN
THIS WORK ARE WORKING WITH
PEOPLE THAT WE SERVE,
COMMUNICATING, CONNECTING WITH
THEM. AND SO I THINK THOSE TOUCH
POINTS ARE ALSO CRITICAL FOR US
AT THE STATE LEVEL TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT THE BARRIERS ARE SO THAT WE
CAN MAKE SURE IN ANY PARTICULAR
COUNTY, WE CAN FOLLOW UP AND DO
THAT ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT AND
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CHALLENGES
TO OFFERING IT IS. IT IS A
STAFFING ISSUE. YOU KNOW WHAT
REALLY UNDERSTANDING AND
UNPACKING IT. SO I WILL JUST SAY
THAT THE FRAMEWORK HAS A
COMPONENT IN IT WITH THE SELF
ASSESSMENT AND THE PROGRAM
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR US TO BE
MORE INTENTIONAL TO BE ABLE TO
ADDRESS THAT. AND AGAIN, I
REFERENCED, PARTICIPANT
SATISFACTION BEING ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WE HAVE NEVER
MEASURED HISTORICALLY THAT IS
EMBEDDED IN THIS FRAMEWORK. AND
IT'S REALLY CRITICAL TO, AGAIN,
BE ABLE TO ADDRESS WHERE THAT'S
NOT WORKING. OKAY. I JUST WANT
TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND I JUST WANT
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE AS
MANY KIND OF OLD MYTHS OUT THERE
ABOUT PEOPLE WHO RECEIVE TANF AS
THOSE WHO DELIVER IT. AND WE ALL
HAPPEN TO BE WOMEN FOR THE MOST
PART. SO I I'LL JUST LEAVE IT
THERE. BUT THANK YOU, JOY. I
KNOW EARLIER YOU WANTED TO
MENTION SOMETHING ON CHILD CARE.
I DIDN'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF
THERE. OH YEAH, WELL, THEY
ANSWERED IT PRETTY WELL, JUST
WHEN I WAS GETTING CHILD CARE, I
GOT A JUST A PIECE OF PAPER THEY
WERE ABLE TO GIVE US, AND IT WAS
HAD BANANA WAS C4 AND THAT STUFF
ON THERE, ALTHOUGH THOSE WEREN'T
AVAILABLE AND I HAD TO REACH
OUT, I ENDED UP REACHING OUT TO
A CHURCH IN MY AREA AND WAS
LIKE, I DON'T GO TO THIS CHURCH.
WAS THAT ON THE LIST THAT YOU
GOT? NO, IT WAS NOT ON THE LIST.
YEAH, I WENT YES. NO ONE WAS
AVAILABLE. YEAH. GRACE, THE GOD
I SAID HEY TO THE CHILDREN AREA.
DOES ANYBODY KNOW DAYCARES. AND
THAT'S HOW I GOT IT FOR MY
CHILDREN. AND THEY WENT THERE
FOR THEIR WHOLE TIME OF GOING TO
DAYCARE. SO IT IS VERY HARD TO
FIND. AND TO BE ABLE TO TRUST
AND, AND IT'S HARD TO KEEP THAT
LIST UP TO DATE. RIGHT AND IN MY
HEAD, OH, SORRY. IN MY HEAD I'M
LIKE, WHY DON'T LIKE CAL WORKS
HAVE LIKE THEIR OWN DAYCARE FOR
CALWORKS PEOPLE LIKE WHY CAN'T
YOU? I LIKE MONEY BUDGETS, ALL
THAT WORK OUT, BUT GO AHEAD. SO
SORRY. WE ACTUALLY HAD A PROGRAM
THAT I ALSO SUPPORTED IN A
FORMER LIFE CALLED CHILD
DEVELOPMENT CAREERS, WHERE WE
ACTUALLY SUPPORTED CALWORKS
PARTICIPANTS TO BECOME CHILD
CARE PROVIDERS. SO GREAT, GREAT,
GREAT IDEA, IT'S SOMETHING THAT
WE HAVE LOOKED AT THAT STILL
EXIST, IT DOES STILL EXIST. IT'S
NOT AS WIDESPREAD AS IT USED TO
BE, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY AN
OPPORTUNITY. AND WE OBVIOUSLY
HAVE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES TO ENTER THE EARLY
CHILDHOOD WORKFORCE MORE BROADLY
NOW, AND DIFFERENT INITIATIVES
TO DO THAT, THE, THE PIECE THAT
I WAS ALSO JUST GOING TO MENTION
WHEN JOY REFERENCED BANANAS,
THOSE ARE THE CHILD CARE
RESOURCE AND REFERRAL AGENCIES
THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN EVERY
COUNTY, IN EVERY STATE.
SOMETIMES MORE THAN ONE
ORGANIZATION. AND THEY PROVIDE
THAT LIST. THAT IS PART OF WHAT
IS A FUNDED RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THOSE RESOURCES, REFERRAL
AGENCIES TO KEEP THOSE LISTS UP
TO DATE. NOW, THE QUESTION ABOUT
IS IT THE RIGHT FIT FOR THE
CHILD? ALL GOOD QUESTIONS,
RIGHT? YOU MIGHT HAVE A PROGRAM.
IT MIGHT IT MIGHT NOT BE THE
RIGHT FIT FOR YOU AND YOUR
FAMILY BASED ON AVAILABILITY. A
LOT OF DIFFERENT FACTORS. AND
THEN OF COURSE, THERE ARE SOME
TIMES WHERE THEY'RE ACTUALLY AT
CAPACITY. SO THE OTHER PIECE I
WOULD SAY ABOUT THAT IS WE ARE
CONTINUING TO IMPROVE OUR DATA
SYSTEMS, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT
CONSUMER EDUCATION IN THAT
ABILITY TO LOOK ONLINE, IT'S
MUCH MORE ACCESSIBLE. IT IS
RIGHT NOW YOU CAN YOU CAN TYPE
IN, FIND CHILD CARE, AND YOU CAN
PUNCH IN YOUR ZIP CODE AND YOU
CAN FIND A PROVIDERS AND
PROGRAMS IN YOUR COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU, SENATOR GROVE. YEAH
THANK YOU. SO I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE I HEARD YOU RIGHT,
THAT YOU, I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE I HEARD YOU RIGHT. JOY, I
APOLOGIZE THAT WHEN YOU GOT THE
CALWORKS REFERRAL FOR CHILD CARE
AND YOU WERE GOING TO SCHOOL AND
TRYING TO MAKE THINGS WORK AND
BE AN EXAMPLE FOR YOUR CHILDREN,
THE PROGRAMS THAT WERE AVAILABLE
THROUGH CALWORKS WERE NOT
AVAILABLE IN YOUR AREA, NOT
AVAILABLE, NOR, FIT THE TIMING,
MY TIME MANAGEMENT OF HOW I GO
TO SCHOOL AND DO WHAT I NEEDED
TO DO IN MY ACTIVITIES TO HAVE
THEM GO THERE. AND YOU WENT TO A
CHURCH? I WENT TO A CHURCH TO
FIND THE DAYCARE. OKAY. IT
WASN'T MY USUAL CHURCH. SO I WAS
JUST IT WAS A CHURCH THAT WAS IN
MY CITY. AND SO I SAID YES. DID
THAT WORK FOR YOU? IT DID WORK.
IT WAS IT WAS GREAT. AND CAN I
JUST AND JUST BECAUSE I'M
CURIOUS, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT
OF PEOPLE THAT SAY, YOU KNOW,
FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS CAN'T
RECEIVE FUNDS FOR WHATEVER OR
WHATEVER ARE YOU ABLE WAS IT
NECESSARY? I'M SORRY. SORRY.
WERE YOU ABLE TO USE, LIKE,
CALWORKS PROGRAMS OR YOUR GRANTS
THAT YOU GET FOR CHILD CARE TO
PAY THE CHURCH OR THE CHURCH?
DIDN'T CHARGE YOU OR IT WASN'T
WITHIN THE CHURCH. SO IT WAS A
DAYCARE THAT THE PEOPLE AT THE
CHURCH KNEW OF. OH, GREAT. SO
THAT'S HOW I JUST WORD OF MOUTH.
I WENT TO A CHURCH. I WAS REALLY
ANOTHER DAYCARE CENTER. YEAH,
YEAH. AND SO THEY SAID, OH,
HERE'S A DAYCARE YOU COULD TRY
OUT. AND I TRIED IT OUT AND IT
WORKED. THANK GOD IT WORKED.
OKAY. SO THANK YOU. I WAS JUST
TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT. THANK
YOU. PERFECT. I DON'T THINK WE
HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON
THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I
APPRECIATE IT, JOY. THANK YOU.
YOU WERE A JOY TO HAVE. I HEAR
YOU, I'M PRETTY SURE YOU HEAR
THAT ALL THE TIME. YEAH. WE'RE
MOVING ON TO ISSUE NUMBER THREE.
CAN I? WE'RE GOING TO BE HEARING
ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED
CUTS TO THE MORE CUTS. SENATOR
EGGMAN, GOVERNOR'S CUTS TO A
PROGRAM SERVING IMMIGRANTS.
JOINING US FROM THE DEPARTMENT.
GOOD MORNING. I BELIEVE OR MAYBE
STILL. GOOD AFTERNOON, ELIANA
KAIMOWITZ. I AM THE ACTING
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF EQUITY
AT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES. I AM ALSO OVERSEEING
THE IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION
BRANCH, SO THANK YOU FOR HAVING
ME HERE, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, I AM GOING TO
BEGIN BY ADDRESSING YOUR SECOND
QUESTION ON THE AGENDA REGARDING
THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
FUNDING REDUCTIONS IN
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES ON
INDIVIDUAL SERVED, AND THE
OVERALL CAPACITY OF THE NETWORK.
THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT EXPECT
THE ELIMINATION OF THE TEMPORARY
PROTECTED STATUS FUNDING AND THE
REDUCTION OF CSU IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICES FUNDING TO HAVE
AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON CLIENTS
CURRENTLY RECEIVING IMMIGRATION
SERVICES SINCE PRIOR YEAR
FUNDING AND THE REDUCED CSU
FUNDING FROM THIS FISCAL YEAR IS
EXPECTED TO COVER EXISTING
SERVICES THROUGH JUNE 2025. THIS
WILL ALLOW CLIENTS TIME TO SEEK
OTHER LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND ALLOW
SERVICE PROVIDERS TIME TO
EXPLORE OTHER SOURCES OF
FUNDING. WHILE SOME INDIVIDUALS
MAY HAVE TO FIND A PRIVATE
ATTORNEY, OTHERS MAY STILL BE
ABLE TO ACCESS FREE STATE FUNDED
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES
PROVIDERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE
THROUGH THE SEPARATE IMMIGRATION
SERVICES FUNDING NETWORK. AS
BACKGROUND. SINCE FISCAL YEAR 20
1819, THE STATE HAS PROVIDED $10
MILLION GENERAL FUND ALLOCATION
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES TO PROVIDE IMMIGRATION
SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH
TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS,
UNACCOMPANIED UNDOCUMENTED
MINORS, AND OTHER POPULATIONS.
WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE
TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS
FUNDING, MANY IMMIGRATION
SERVICE PROVIDERS WILL CONTINUE
TO RECEIVE SOME FUNDING THROUGH
OUR ANNUAL IMMIGRATION SERVICES
FUNDING. SIMILARLY, CLIENTS
IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED
REDUCTION IN THE CSU IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICES FUNDING MAY BE
ABLE TO CONTINUE TO ACCESS PRO
BONO LEGAL SERVICES THROUGH THE
IMMIGRATION SERVICES FUNDING
NETWORK OF PROVIDERS. AS A
REFERENCE IN THE AGENDA, THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET IS PROPOSING
PROPOSING TO REVERT 5.2 MILLION
TO THE GENERAL FUND AND MAINTAIN
1.8 MILLION IN FUNDING THIS YEAR
AND ONGOING FOR CSU IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICES. THE DEPARTMENT
WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE CSU
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE AND OUR
NONPROFIT IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICE PROVIDERS TO DETERMINE
WHICH POPULATIONS AMONG STUDENT
STAFF AND FACULTY, AND
POTENTIALLY WHICH CAMPUSES TO
PRIORITIZE FOR CONTINUED
FUNDING. IN SOME COMMUNITIES,
THERE MAY BE OTHER IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS AND
ATTORNEY COLLABORATIVES THAT CAN
PROVIDE FREE OR REDUCED PRICE
IMMIGRATION SERVICES FUNDED
THROUGH PRIVATE DONORS,
FOUNDATIONS, OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. WHILE THE OVERALL
REDUCTION IN FUNDING WILL RESULT
IN A MORE COMPETITIVE
APPLICATION PROCESS FOR SERVICE
PROVIDERS AND LIKELY A LOWER
NUMBER OF CLIENTS SERVED, SOME
EXISTING CLIENTS MAY STILL BE
ABLE TO ACCESS STATE FUNDED
ASSISTANCE. THE IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS
CURRENTLY PROVIDING SERVICES AT
THE CSU CAMPUSES, AND MANY OF
THOSE PROVIDING SERVICES THROUGH
THE TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS
FUNDING ALSO RECEIVE THE STATE
IMMIGRATION SERVICES FUNDING
AWARDS. THE ANNUAL 45 MILLION
IMMIGRATION SERVICES FUNDING
WILL ALLOW THE STATE TO CONTINUE
TO MAINTAIN A CORE, HIGH QUALITY
NETWORK OF PRO BONO IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA AND CONTINUE TO SERVE
THOUSANDS OF IMMIGRANTS. NOW, I
WILL TURN TO THE QUESTION ABOUT
THE CHILDREN'S HOLISTIC
IMMIGRATION REPRESENTATION
PROJECT. ALSO KNOWN AS CHIRP.
THE CHIRP IS A PILOT PROJECT
THAT FUNDS NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE BOTH
IMMIGRATION, LEGAL
REPRESENTATION AS WELL AS CASE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO IMMIGRANT
YOUTH. MANY OF WHOM ARRIVED TO
THE COUNTRY AS UNACCOMPANIED
UNDOCUMENTED MINORS. THE PILOT
WAS FUNDED THROUGH A ONE TIME,
15.3 MILLION ALLOCATION IN
FISCAL YEAR 20 2322, SORRY 20
2223 SERVICES BEGAN IN SEPTEMBER
2022 AND ARE EXPECTED TO END IN
SEPTEMBER 2024. THE DEPARTMENT
AWARDED THIS FUNDING TO ONE
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR AND 16
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA TO PROVIDE
IMMIGRATION, LEGAL
REPRESENTATION AND CASE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO HELP
YOUTH ACCESS EDUCATIONAL
SUPPORTS. ENROLL IN MEDICAL AND
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, AND
ACCESS FOOD, HOUSING, AND
MENTORING SUPPORTS AVAILABLE IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES THUS FAR. OVER
600 YOUTH HAVE RECEIVED
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES. THEY
HAVE RECEIVED REFERRALS TO OTHER
SUPPORT SERVICES AND HAVE BEEN
ACCOMPANIED TO OTHER SOCIAL
SERVICE APPOINTMENTS. YOUTH
SERVED UNDER THIS PROJECT HAVE
GREATLY BENEFITED FROM HAVING
THE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT OF SOCIAL
WORKERS AND CASE MANAGERS, WHO
HELP THEM NAVIGATE AND ACCESS
PUBLIC SERVICES IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES. AFTER THE PROJECT
FUNDING ENDS, MOST OF THE
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WILL
CONTINUE TO RECEIVE STATE
FUNDING TO PROVIDE IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICES, BUT WILL NO
LONGER HAVE STATE FUNDING TO
RETAIN THEIR SOCIAL WORKERS WHO
SUPPORT THE CASE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES. FINALLY, I WILL TURN
TO YOUR QUESTION REGARDING THE
RAPID RESPONSE FUNDING, THE
RAPID RESPONSE FUNDING
APPROPRIATED BY THE GOVERNOR AND
THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALLOWED THE
DEPARTMENT TO QUICKLY PROVIDE
STATE FUNDING FOR CRITICAL
ASSISTANCE TO NON-U.S. CITIZEN
IMMIGRANTS IN THEIR TIME OF NEED
WHEN FEDERAL FUNDING IS
UNAVAILABLE. SINCE 2019, THE
DEPARTMENT HAS USED THE FUNDING
TO ADDRESS IMMIGRANT NEEDS
ARISING FROM CHANGES IN FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION POLICY, INCREASED
MIGRANT ARRIVALS AT THE
SOUTHWEST BORDER, AS WELL AS
REOCCURRING NATURAL DISASTERS
IMPACTING CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANTS
WHO ARE INELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL
ASSISTANCE. IF NO ADDITIONAL
RAPID RESPONSE FUNDING IS
PROVIDED, THE DEPARTMENT WILL NO
LONGER BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THESE
TYPES OF SERVICES ONCE
AUTHORIZED, FUNDS ARE EXHAUSTED.
GIVEN THE FLUIDITY OF THE
SITUATION AT THE BORDER,
INCLUDING THE FLUCTUATIONS OF
THE NUMBERS OF ARRIVING MIGRANTS
AND CHANGING FEDERAL BORDER
POLICIES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO
DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT THE
IMPACT WILL BE OF REDUCING OR
ENDING RAPID RESPONSE FUNDING
FOR THE BORDER. WILL THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
IMMIGRATION POLICY AND
PROCESSING OVER THE LAST FIVE
YEARS, CALIFORNIA HAS SERVED AS
A MODEL OF PARTNERSHIP WITH OUR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS TO UNDERTAKE
HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS IN BORDER
COMMUNITIES. BEGINNING IN 2023,
THE BORDER MISSION TRANSITIONED
BACK TO A PRE-PANDEMIC,
NONPROFIT LED SHELTERING MODEL
FOCUSED ON HELPING VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS WITH CONTINUED STATE
SUPPORT. THROUGH DEPARTMENT
GRANT FUNDING AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE, OUR NONPROFIT
PARTNERS PROVIDE SHELTERING
SERVICES FOR MIGRANT ARRIVALS
UTILIZING BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL
FUNDING AS WELL AS PRIVATE
PHILANTHROPIC DONATIONS. WHILE
STATE FUNDING WAS DESIGNED TO
SUPPLEMENT, NOT REPLACE, FEDERAL
FUNDING, THE STATE'S BUDGET
ALLOCATIONS HAVE ALLOWED THE
NONPROFITS TO HAVE ACCESS TO
UPFRONT FUNDING WHILE THEY
RECEIVE FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT
AND TO COVER OPERATIONAL
EXPENDITURES NOT COVERED BY
FEDERAL FUNDING. CONGRESS
RECENTLY ALLOCATED 650 MILLION
TO THE FEDERAL SHELTER AND
SERVICES PROGRAM, CURRENTLY
ADMINISTERED BY THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
FEMA, THE FEDERAL SHELTER AND
SERVICES PROGRAM PROVIDES FUNDS
TO NONFEDERAL ENTITIES,
INCLUDING THE NONPROFITS WORKING
ON OUR CALIFORNIA BORDER MISSION
TO PROVIDE SHELTERING AND OTHER
ELIGIBLE SERVICES TO MIGRANTS
ENCOUNTERED BY FEDERAL BORDER
OFFICIALS AND RELEASED FROM
CUSTODY WHILE AWAITING THEIR
IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS. IT IS
UNCERTAIN AT THIS TIME WHAT
PORTION OF THIS FUNDING WILL BE
AWARDED TO ENTITIES IN
CALIFORNIA IF NO ADDITIONAL
STATE STATE RAPID RESPONSE
FUNDING IS AVAILABLE. NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS SERVING MIGRANTS
AT THE BORDER WOULD HAVE TO
COVER THEIR EXPENSES THROUGH
PRIVATE PHILANTHROPIC DONATIONS
AND ANY AVAILABLE FEDERAL
FUNDING. CALIFORNIA WILL
CONTINUE ADVOCATING FOR FEDERAL
FUNDING TO PROVIDE HUMANITARIAN
ASSISTANCE FOR NEWLY ARRIVING
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AT OUR
SOUTHERN BORDER. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME. TODAY. I'M AVAILABLE
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THOMAS WILL
YOU BE GIVING ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENT? YES. THOMAS LOCKE,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, TO
ADDRESS YOUR FIRST QUESTION ON
THE REASONING FOR THE REDUCTIONS
IN TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE SERVICES
AND CSU DUE TO THE BUDGET
SHORTFALL, THE ADMINISTRATION
PROPOSED THESE REDUCTIONS TO
BEGIN ADDRESSING THE OUTYEAR
NEGATIVE BALANCES. ALTHOUGH
FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM IS
PROPOSED TO BE REDUCED, THESE
PROGRAMS WILL REMAIN AUTHORIZED
IN STATE STATUTE AND AS
MENTIONED BEFORE BY MY COLLEAGUE
AS WELL, FINANCE IS COMMITTED TO
WORKING WITH THE LEGISLATURE AND
IS OPEN TO DISCUSSING
ALTERNATIVES FOR THESE PROGRAMS.
THOMAS, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING
I WAS GOING TO ASK BECAUSE WE'RE
ESSENTIALLY THE TPS PORTION WILL
BE, NOT MOVING FORWARD. IT WOULD
STILL BE IN STATUTE, THE
PROGRAM. SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO
JUST DELAY IT. IT'D BE OKAY IF
WE WANTED TO EVER FUND IT AGAIN.
THE PROGRAM IN ITSELF WOULD
STILL BE IN. I DO NOT HAVE THE
ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. SORRY,
I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SO
THE TPS FUNDING IS BUDGET BILL
ITEM, BUT IT GOES THROUGH OUR
WICK SECTION THAT AUTHORIZES OUR
GENERAL IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICES FUNDING. AND THAT WILL
REMAIN IN STATUTE. BECAUSE I WAS
GOING TO ASK IF WE COULD JUST
DELAY, BECAUSE I WAS SCARED THAT
BY JUST CUTTING IT, WE WERE JUST
HAVE TO LIKE START ALL OVER TO
FIRST PUT THE PROGRAM BACK IN
AND THEN TRY TO FIND FUNDING.
NO. AGAIN, THE TEMPORARY
PROTECTED STATUS FUNDING IS A
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING ADDITION TO
OUR GENERAL IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICES PROGRAM THAT WE THAT IS
ALREADY AUTHORIZED IN OUR
WELFARE INSTITUTIONS CODE. SO IF
WE EVER WANT TO COME BACK, YOU
CAN. YES, IT'D BE EASY. EASY
JUST TO DO IT. OKAY, OKAY. WE'LL
MOVE ON RIGHT NOW TO, LAO XUAN
TROTTER, LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE. SO I'LL START OFF WITH
THE TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS
SERVICES PROGRAM. SO IT'S OUR
UNDERSTANDING THAT, THAT'S ONE
OF THE INITIATIVES UNDER THE TPS
PROGRAM, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED,
WILL CONTINUE TO BE SUPPORTED
THROUGH THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES
FUNDING PROGRAM, AT LEAST IN THE
SHORT RUN. WITH THAT BEING SAID,
THE LEGISLATURE MAY WANT TO
MONITOR HOW THIS ILLUMINATION
WILL IMPACT THE NUMBER OF
IMMIGRANTS BEING SERVED, AS WELL
AS CONTINUE TO ASK QUESTIONS
REGARDING WHAT THE LONG TERME
PLAN WILL BE FOR THIS FOR THESE
SERVICES MOVING FORWARD.
ADDITIONALLY FROM OUR
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
DEPARTMENT, IT'S OUR
UNDERSTANDING THAT, THAT NONE OF
THE FUNDING FROM THE 2023 2024
BUDGET HAS BEEN ENCUMBERED TO
DATE AND SO HAS NOT. WHAT IT HAS
BEEN, HAS NOT BEEN ENCUMBERED TO
DATE BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSED REDUCTIONS. SO MOVING
ON TO THE CSU, LEGAL SERVICES
PROGRAM, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING
THAT THERE REMAINS ABOUT $8.8
MILLION AVAILABLE TO BE SPENT
THROUGH JUNE 2025, AS WAS
MENTIONED, THIS INCLUDES $7
MILLION FROM THE 20 2223 BUDGET
ALLOCATION AND $1.8 MILLION FROM
THE 20 2324 BUDGET ALLOCATION.
SO WITH THAT, WE THINK THE
LEGISLATURE MAY WANT TO USE THAT
TIME TO KIND OF BETTER
UNDERSTAND HOW THAT REDUCTION IN
FUNDING WILL IMPACT THE
POPULATIONS BEING SERVED. OKAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. TURNING OVER
NOW TO, POLICY DIRECTOR,
IMMIGRANT DEFENSE ADVOCATES.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON,
HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS JACKIE GONZALES, AND I'M
THE POLICY DIRECTOR AT IMMIGRANT
DEFENSE ADVOCATES. I APPEAR
BEFORE YOU TODAY AS SOMEONE WHO
SPENT A DECADE PROVIDING
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES TO
HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
INVESTMENTS THAT CALIFORNIA HAS
MADE IN ITS IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE
THE WORD INVESTMENTS WHEN
DESCRIBING THE PROVISION OF
LEGAL SERVICES, BECAUSE THESE
SERVICES DO MUCH MORE THAN HELP
AN INDIVIDUAL OBTAIN LEGAL
STATUS, THEY ACTUALLY OFFER A
DIRECT PATHWAY TO SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL, THE FAMILY, THEIR
COMMUNITY, AND ULTIMATELY OUR
STATE. THIS PRESENTATION WILL
COVER THREE PROPOSED CUTS THAT
WE IMPLORE THE LEGISLATURE TO
REJECT. THE FIRST IS THE TPS
CUT. THAT PROGRAM WAS FUNDED AT
$10 MILLION. THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL IS TO ELIMINATE IT.
THIS PROGRAM COVERS INDIVIDUALS
WHO RECEIVE TPS, A STATUS GIVEN
TO INDIVIDUALS FROM CERTAIN
COUNTRIES FLEEING UNSTABLE AND
UNSAFE CONDITIONS HISTORICALLY
CENTRAL AMERICANS. MOST RECENTLY
EXAMPLES ARE AFGHANS UKRAINIANS
FLEEING WAR. THE TPS PROGRAM
ALSO ENCOMPASSES REALLY UNIQUE
INITIATIVES, I'LL GIVE YOU A FEW
EXAMPLES OF A NON-EXHAUSTIVE
LIST. THE BLACK IMMIGRANT AND
REFUGEE EQUITY PROJECT LAUNCHED
TO SUPPORT BLACK MIGRANTS WHO
FACED DISPROPORTIONATE RATES OF
DETENTION AND ISOLATION WHILE IN
IMMIGRATION DETENTION. THE
DEPORTED VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES
PROJECT, WHICH PROVIDES OUTREACH
AND LEGAL SERVICES TO DEPORTED
VETERANS, AND THE FARM WORKER
LABOR RIGHTS PROJECT, WHICH
PROVIDES MUCH NEEDED LEGAL
SERVICES TO AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
IN OUR STATE. AGAIN, NOT AN
EXHAUSTIVE LIST. OVER 2500
INDIVIDUALS HAVE HAVE BEEN
SERVED THROUGH THE COMBINATION
OF THESE PROGRAMS. IN 2223
FISCAL YEAR ALONE. THE SECOND
PROPOSED CUT WOULD REDUCE THE
CSU IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES
PROGRAM BY NEARLY 75% FROM AN
ANNUAL ALLOCATION OF 7 MILLION
ONGOING TO 1.8. THAT CUT HAS
TAKEN EFFECT THIS YEAR. THE CSU
LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM IS A
HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL MODEL THAT
PROVIDES QUALITY LEGAL SERVICES
AT ALL 23 CSU CAMPUSES. SINCE
ITS INCEPTION IN 2019, THAT
PROGRAM HAS CONDUCTED OVER
11,001 ON ONE CONSULTATIONS AND
PROVIDED FULL SCOPE LEGAL REP TO
OVER 7000 INDIVIDUALS IN
ADDITION, OVER 4500 STUDENTS
WITH DACA APPLICATIONS. THIS
PROGRAM YOU'LL HEAR FROM
STUDENTS TODAY HAS RADICALLY
CHANGED THEIR LIVES, ALLOWING
THEM TO COMPLETE THEIR
EDUCATION, PROVIDING THEM AND
THEIR FAMILY WITH A PATH TO
LEGALIZATION AND RELATEDLY,
ECONOMIC STABILIZATION. ALUMS OF
THESE SERVICES NOT ONLY HAVE
BAS, THEY'RE PURSUING GRADUATE
DEGREES IN HIGHLY SPECIALIZED
FIELDS, WHICH ARE A BENEFIT TO
OUR STATE AND FULFILLING
PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL GOALS THEY
NEVER THOUGHT POSSIBLE. THE
ADMINISTRATION'S RATIONALE FOR
THIS CUT IS TO ALIGN IT WITH THE
UC SYSTEM, WHICH IS A GROSSLY
INEQUITABLE SOLUTION WHEN ONE
CONSIDERS THE UC LEGAL SERVICES
PROGRAM COVERS NINE CAMPUSES TO
THE CSU'S 23, AND THEY HAVE AN
ESTIMATED UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT
POPULATION OF 4000 TO THE CSU'S
OVER TEN. EVERYONE KNOWS CSU IS
THE NATION'S LIKE, LARGEST
PUBLIC UNIVERSITY, AND THE
FAMILIES THAT ACCESS THESE
CAMPUSES, ARE NOT THE SAME
PROFILE OF THE STUDENTS
ATTENDING THE UCS. THE THIRD
PROGRAM AND FINAL IS THE CHIRP,
THE CHILDREN'S HOLISTIC
IMMIGRATION REPRESENTATION
PROJECT, WHICH WOULD BE
DISCONTINUED EFFECTIVE THIS
SEPTEMBER. NO MONEY HAS BEEN
ALLOCATED TO THIS PROGRAM. IT IS
A FIRST OF ITS KIND INITIATIVE.
IT'S A RESPONSE THAT WAS
ACTUALLY PUT FORWARD BY THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN 2022, DUE
TO THE RECORD NUMBER OF
UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN ARRIVING
AT OUR BORDERS, THAT NUMBER HAS
ONLY CONTINUED TO GROW SINCE
2022. IT PROVIDES HOLISTIC
SERVICES, AS ELIANA MENTIONED,
AND HAS HELPED HUNDREDS OF
CHILDREN NOT JUST WITH THEIR
LEGAL CASE. THESE ARE CHILDREN,
BUT GETTING EDUCATION, GETTING
THEM ENROLLED IN SCHOOL, MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES, FOOD AND
HOUSING ASSISTANCE. ENDING THIS
PROGRAM, JUST AS IT IS GETTING
STARTED WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO
THAT POPULATION. FINALLY THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS SUGGESTED
THAT IMMIGRANTS SERVED BY THE
CHIRP, CSU AND TPS PROGRAMS CAN
ACCESS FUNDING THROUGH OTHER
STATE PROGRAMS OR BY HIRING
PRIVATE COUNSEL. THE REALITY IS
THAT THE IMMIGRANTS SERVED ON
THESE PROGRAMS. AGAIN ARE
UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN, STUDENTS
AND TPS HOLDERS IN PRECARIOUS
SITUATIONS WHO LACK THE
RESOURCES TO PAY FOR PRIVATE
COUNSEL AND VERY OFTEN RESIDE IN
REGIONS THAT LACK QUALITY PRO
BONO SERVICES. WHILE THIS
COMMITTEE IS RIGHTFULLY
CONCERNED ABOUT COST SAVINGS
DURING A DIFFICULT BUDGETARY
YEAR, IT MUST ALSO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE IMPORTANCE OF
MAINTAINING INVESTMENTS THAT
SAVE THE STATE MONEY IN THE LONG
RUN, WITH NEARLY HALF OF ALL
CALIFORNIA CHILDREN HAVING AT
LEAST ONE IMMIGRANT PARENT,
MILLIONS OF FAMILIES IN THE
STATE ARE IMPACTED BY THIS
ISSUE. IN CLOSING, INVESTING IN
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES IS AN
INVESTMENT IN CALIFORNIA'S
FUTURE PROSPERITY. DEFUNDING
THESE PROGRAMS NOW, AS WE FACE
THE PROSPECT OF A CHANGE IN THE
PRESIDENCY AND RENEWED ATTACKS
ON OUR IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES IS
A STEP BACKWARDS FOR OUR STATE.
THESE PROGRAMS ACT AS VITAL
CONDUITS TO OUR COMMUNITIES, AND
WHO OFTEN FIND THEMSELVES AS THE
PRIMARY TARGETS OF ICE
ENFORCEMENT AND RAIDS. FOR THIS
AND ALL OF THE OTHER REASONS
OUTLINED IN THIS PRESENTATION,
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE
LEGISLATURE REJECT THESE CUTS.
JACKIE, DID YOU SAY THAT THE TPS
PROGRAM HAS SERVED 2500 IN
FISCAL YEAR 2223? YES OKAY. AND
FOR THE TPS, IS IT TO OBTAIN
THEIR TPS OR YOU'RE ALREADY ON
TPS, IT'S A COMBINATION BECAUSE
THE PROGRAMS THAT I CITED LIKE
THE BLACK IMMIGRANT REFUGEE
PROJECT AND THE OTHER ONES, THAT
PROJECT, FOR EXAMPLE, PROVIDES
REMOVAL DEFENSE SERVICES TO THE
BLACK MIGRANTS WHO HAVE BEEN
HISTORICALLY UNDERSERVED, THE
TP, THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE
PROGRAM THAT ARE STRAIGHTFORWARD
SORT OF TPS SUPPORT, THEY MAY
ASSIST SOMEONE WHO HAS RECENTLY
ARRIVED FROM A COUNTRY LIKE
AFGHANISTAN, UKRAINE, IN
OBTAINING TPS FOR THE FIRST
TIME, TPS, AS YOU I'M NOT, YOU
KNOW, MAYBE FAMILIAR, THE
PERIODS FOR OPENING AND CLOSING
AND REDESIGNATION AND RENEWALS,
SHIFT VERY QUICKLY. SO THAT
PROGRAM ALSO COVERS THE RENEWAL
OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN EXISTING
TPS HOLDERS. JUST TO CLARIFY,
PEOPLE LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY WITH
TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR
DECADES. AND SO THIS PROGRAM
SERVES PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT JUST
RECENTLY ARRIVED, YOU KNOW,
IMMIGRATION IS COMPLEX, BUT WHO
HAVE BEEN CONTRIBUTING MEMBERS
AND A PART OF THE FABRIC OF OUR
SOCIETY FOR DECADES. OKAY, AND
THEN FINALLY, WE'LL HEAR FROM A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE JEWISH
FAMILY SERVICE OF SAN DIEGO.
THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KATE
CLARK. I'M THE SENIOR DIRECTOR
OF IMMIGRATION SERVICES AT
JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SAN
DIEGO. JFS SAN DIEGO IS THE
OPERATOR OF THE SAN DIEGO RAPID
RESPONSE NETWORK MIGRANT SHELTER
ACROSS FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIONS
AND AMIDST A GLOBAL PANDEMIC, WE
HAVE CENTERED PUBLIC HEALTH AND
WELCOME 200,000 INDIVIDUALS
SEEKING ASYLUM WITH DIGNITY,
COMPASSION AND RESPECT OVER THE
LAST FIVE AND A HALF YEARS. WHAT
STARTED AS JUST ONE RESPITE
SHELTER IN THE STATE THROUGH A
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, HAS
NOW BEEN SCALED TO SEVERAL NGO
OPERATORS IN THREE COUNTIES.
EACH OF THESE SHELTERS HAVE AN
ESTABLISHED INFRASTRUCTURE IN
PLACE, BOTH CONGREGATE AND NON
CONGREGATE SHELTER MODELS THAT
ALLOW FOR A HUMAN CENTERED,
COORDINATED RECEPTION OF
NON-CITIZENS BEING RELEASED FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY INTO THE NGO SHELTER
CARES. IF NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING
IS ALLOCATED TO THE STATE'S
RAPID RESPONSE FUND, THE
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND
CAPACITY WOULD SHRINK. AT THIS
MOMENT, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
HAS A CRITICAL CHOICE WILL IT
MAINTAIN ITS CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT SERVES AS A
HIGHLY EFFICIENT MODEL? NATIONAL
MODEL FOR ENSURING THAT ASYLUM
SEEKERS AND OTHERS WHO ARE
LEGALLY ALLOWED INTO THIS
COUNTRY BY DHS SEEKING
PROTECTION, OR WILL THE STATE
DECIDE TO STOP ITS INVESTMENT,
WHICH WILL UNDOUBTEDLY
NECESSITATE MOVING TO A COSTLY
EMERGENCY RESPONSE APPROACH DOWN
THE LINE THAT WILL LEAVE
THOUSANDS OF VULNERABLE FAMILIES
AND POPULATIONS ON THE STREETS
OF OUR CITIES. THE ROLE OF
ASSISTING PEOPLE SEEKING ASYLUM
HAS BEEN TRIAGED BY CIVIL
SOCIETY AND COUNTIES LIKE
RIVERSIDE FOR MANY YEARS. WHAT
REMAINS IS THE URGENT
HUMANITARIAN NEED IN THE REGION
TO ASSIST PEOPLE SEEKING ASYLUM
AT THE US SOUTHERN BORDER, AND
THE FUNDING CURRENTLY MISSING
FROM THE STATE BUDGET WILL
RESULT IN A HUMANITARIAN
CHALLENGE. THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT PASSED ITS BUDGET AND
INCLUDED IN IT WAS $650 MILLION
FOR HUMANITARIAN SERVICES. THIS
IS NEARLY A 20% REDUCTION IN
FUNDS. IMPORTANTLY, WE WILL
AWAIT TO SEE WHAT CALIFORNIA'S
SHARE WILL BE. BUT ONE THING IS
FOR CERTAIN, IT WILL NOT BE
ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT
INFRASTRUCTURE. AND WITHOUT THE
STATE'S FUNDING, VULNERABLE
ASYLUM SEEKERS WILL BE WITHOUT
SUPPORT. AND AGAIN, ON THE
STREETS OF SAN DIEGO AND OTHER
PARTS OF THE BORDER, THIS PUBLIC
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP CURRENTLY
SAVES TAXPAYERS FROM FOOTING THE
BILL OF A SUBSTANTIALLY MORE
EXPENSIVE EMERGENCY INTERVENTION
PROGRAM, AND PUTS INDIVIDUALS ON
A PATHWAY TO STABILITY. 98% OF
THE ASYLUM SEEKERS THAT WE SERVE
ACTUALLY MOVE ON TO THEIR
NETWORKS OF CARE IN OTHER PARTS
OF THE COUNTRY AND OUTSIDE OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY. THESE FAMILIES
AND INDIVIDUALS JUST NEED A
MOMENT OF SUPPORT TO CHARGE
THEIR PHONE, TO CONNECT WITH
THEIR LOVED ONES AND BE ASSISTED
WITH THEIR TRAVEL ONWARD TO
OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. THE
INTERSECTION OF RESPITE SHELTER
IS ACTUALLY THE INTERSECTION OF
TWO BROKEN SYSTEMS THE
IMMIGRATION SYSTEM AND THE
UNSHELTERED SERVICES SYSTEM.
IMPORTANTLY, BECAUSE IT IS
HUMANITARIAN SHELTERS THAT MOST
ASYLUM SEEKERS CAN SUCCESSFULLY
MOVE ON TO ASSIST THEIR NETWORKS
OF CARE, INSTEAD OF BEING
STRANDED AGAIN AND UNSHELTERED
ON THE STREETS THROUGH THE
MEDICAL SUPPORTS THAT ARE
PROVIDED AT THESE NGO SHELTERS,
WE HAVE A LESS THAN 1% REFERRAL
RATE TO EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS
AND URGENT CARES FROM THE SAN
DIEGO BASED SHELTERS. SO THIS
MEANS THAT ANOTHER TAX SYSTEM,
OUR HEALTH SYSTEM, CAN BE
PRIORITIZED FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS
WHO URGENTLY NEED CARE VERSUS
USING THOSE SPACES AS A TRIAGE
MECHANISM. YES, IMMIGRATION IS
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MUST ALSO INVEST IN
ITS SHELTER AND SERVICES
PROGRAM, WHICH I HAVE JUST
SHARED IT DID WITH AN
APPROPRIATION OF 650 MILLION FOR
THE LAST FIVE AND A HALF YEARS,
CALIFORNIA HAS LED THE WAY IN
FILLING CRITICAL GAPS. WE'VE
DEMONSTRATED THAT IT IS POSSIBLE
TO COMPASSIONATELY WELCOME AND
CARE FOR NEWCOMERS AND
EFFICIENTLY PROVIDE SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES THROUGH INNOVATION AND
PROACTIVE PLANNING. WE'VE BEEN
PART OF THE SOLUTION AVOIDING
CHALLENGING CIRCUMSTANCES AND
HEADLINES THAT OTHER STATES
ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE FACED TO
AVOID THE LOSS OF CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ALL IT
SUPPORTS FOR CALIFORNIA AS A
WHOLE. WE RESPECTFULLY AND
URGENTLY REQUEST THAT THE
LEGISLATURE PRIORITIZE RESTORING
150 MILLION PROVIDED BY THE
STATE AND INCLUDED IN THE EARLY
ACTION TO ENSURE THAT
UNINTERRUPTED OPERATION,
MANAGEMENT OF NEW ARRIVALS FROM
THE SOUTHERN BORDER REMAINS IN
PLACE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, KATE, I'M NOT SURE WE CAN
ANSWER THIS QUESTION, BUT HAS
THE $45 MILLION ANNUALLY ALWAYS
BEEN SPENT? YES. IT HAS BEEN
SPENT EVERY YEAR. IT WAS AT IT
STARTED OFF AS A $15 MILLION
ALLOCATION. THEN IT GREW TO 30.
AND THEN FOR THE LAST FIVE
YEARS, IT'S BEEN 45 MILLION.
EVERY YEAR IT HAS BEEN SPENT,
THIS YEAR THERE WAS A CHANGE IN
SOME OF THE STATUTE AND SORRY,
AND SOME OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
LANGUAGE, ENCUMBRANCE
LIQUIDATION LANGUAGE. SO HALF OF
IT WILL LIKELY GO BACK TO THE
GENERAL FUND BECAUSE OF JUST THE
TIMING, THE ALIGNMENT OF THAT.
BUT THE NEED THERE HAS ALWAYS
BEEN A DEMAND FOR THE 45
MILLION, AND IT HAS BEEN
ALLOCATED EVERY YEAR. WHAT WHAT
WILL HAPPEN TO THE ACTIVE CASES
WOULD THEY GO IN LIMBO IF THEY
STARTED A CASE AND THEN THE
FUNDING IS CUT? THAT'S HARD TO
SAY. EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE, IT
DEPENDS ON WHAT THE REMEDY IS
THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. SOME OF
THOSE CASES TAKE FIVE YEARS.
SOME OF THEM CAN BE RESOLVED
SOONER. SO IT'S VERY
INDIVIDUALIZED IN IMMIGRATION.
WHAT THE SPECIFIC CASES ARE,
SOME PEOPLE MAY HAVE TO SEEK A
DIFFERENT COUNSEL. SOME OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS MAY BE ABLE TO
TAKE IT IN THROUGH THEIR
IMMIGRATION SERVICES FUNDING. I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL WANT TO
ADD KATE AND JACKIE, WHERE DO WE
GET OUTSIDE OF THE 650 FEDERAL
THAT YOU MENTIONED FOR BORDER?
WHERE DO WE GET MOST OF OUR
IMMIGRATION SERVICE FUNDING FOR
FROM? JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE 650
MILLION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES. WE
DON'T GET A DOLLAR FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES. IT'S
FOR BORDER SUPPORT. THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, THERE IS NO RIGHT. I
MEAN, I CAN GO ON, BUT THERE IS
NO RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN
IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS, EVEN
THOUGH IT'S A LAW THAT PEOPLE
JOKE IS MORE COMPLEX, PERHAPS,
THAN TAX LAW OR RIGHT AFTER TAX
LAW. AND, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE
THAT GO UP BEFORE THE SYSTEM OF
LAW. SO THERE IS THERE'S NO
RIGHT. CALIFORNIA IS A LEADER IN
THIS COUNTRY ON PROVIDING LEGAL
SERVICES, FUNDING LIKE ELIANA
MENTIONED, FIRST 15, THEN 30,
THEN 45 EVERY YEAR. LIKE I SAID,
THE MONEY GOES OUT. I THINK THAT
THE DEPARTMENT ALSO COULD
PROBABLY PROVIDE THE NUMBER OF
APPLICANT, APPLICANT, NGOS THAT
REQUEST FUNDS TO THE MONEY
THAT'S ACTUALLY PUT OUT IF YOU
WERE INTERESTED, BECAUSE I FIND
THAT TO BE A VERY INTERESTING
FIGURE TO SHOW JUST HOW MANY
NONPROFITS, YOU KNOW, COULD
STILL PROVIDE SERVICES. SO THE
FOLKS UNDER TPS, THE CSU PROGRAM
, AND CHIRP, WHICH IS
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING TO THE 45
MILLION, I WOULD SAY IT'S NOT
VERY EASY TO TURN TO A NONPROFIT
TO TAKE A CASE. I WORKED AT
THESE NONPROFITS FOR OVER A
DECADE. YOU ARE BACKLOGGED. SO
WHEN PEOPLE LOSE SERVICES, YES.
IN THEORY THEY COULD GO TO A
NONPROFIT, BUT THEY'RE PROBABLY
GOING TO GET TURNED AWAY. AND
MANY OF THE PEOPLE YOU HEAR FROM
TODAY WILL SAY, I GOT TURNED
AWAY HERE. BUT BECAUSE OF THIS
PROGRAM, I WAS ABLE TO GET HELP.
WHICH DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE ORGS
THAT ARE DOING THAT WORK,
THEY'RE DOING GREAT WORK. IT'S
JUST THE NEED IS VERY HIGH.
OKAY. WHEN WE PUT OUT AN RFP OR
FOR THESE, ARE WE IS IT OVER? IS
OUR WORD OVER. OVERSUBSCRIBED.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THERE WE
WERE. HIGHER REQUESTS THAN 45
MILLION FOR FUNDING. OKAY
SENATOR ROTH, I DON'T KNOW AS
MUCH ABOUT THIS LEGAL SERVICES
PROGRAM AS I SHOULD, BUT ARE
THESE ACTUAL CASES THAT WHERE I
REALIZE THERE'S NO RIGHT TO AN
ATTORNEY, BUT WE PROVIDING LEGAL
SERVICES. SO ARE THESE ACTUAL
CASES THAT THE IN THIS CASE,
STUDENTS MAY BE ARE INVOLVED IN
THAT ARE MOVING THROUGH THE
IMMIGRATION SYSTEM? THEY DON'T
WANT ME TO TALK. WELL, THEY
DON'T WANT ME TO TALK EITHER. I
KNOW WE CAN HAVE A SIDEBAR
CONVERSATION IF YOU HAVE A
COUPLE HOURS, BUT NO, TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTION, SENATOR ROTH,
IT'S A IT'S A COMBINATION. SO,
TO SIMPLIFY IT, THERE'S
AFFIRMATIVE CASES AND DEFENSIVE
CASES. IF YOU ARE UNDOCUMENTED
IN THIS COUNTRY OR EVEN
DOCUMENTED, YOU CAN MAKE
APPLICATIONS TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN A VARIETY
OF DIFFERENT LEGAL STATUSES. AND
YOU CAN PUT FORWARD AN
AFFIRMATIVE CASE IF YOU ARRIVE,
YOU SEEK ASYLUM. IF YOU'RE A
PERMANENT RESIDENT AND YOU WANT
TO BECOME A CITIZEN, THAT'S AN
AFFIRMATIVE LEGAL CASE FOR WHICH
YOU SHOULD STILL HAVE AN
ATTORNEY, BECAUSE THE LAW IS
VERY COMPLEX, THEN THERE'S
DEFENSIVE CASES WHERE SOMEONE IS
IN IMMIGRATION COURT. WE'RE NOT
GETTING INTO THE DETAILS OF WHY
THEY'RE THERE SOMETIMES, BUT BUT
IN THAT SCENARIO, THEY'RE
ACTUALLY IN A COURTROOM. AND
THAT'S ANOTHER TYPE OF LEGAL
CASE WHERE SOMEONE REQUIRES AN
ATTORNEY. THE LEGAL SERVICES
FUNDED BY THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA RUN THE GAMUT IN
TERMS OF WHAT THE LEGAL SERVICES
COVER. THEY COVER APPLICATION
ASSISTANCE, TO BECOME A CITIZEN,
BECOME A PERMANENT RESIDENT, AND
THEN THEY DEFEND IN IMMIGRATION
COURT. THOSE ARE THE MORE
COMPLEX REMOVAL CASES WHEN
SOMEONE IS FACING DEPORTATION.
SO SOMETIMES YOU MIGHT HAVE,
LIKE A CSU STUDENT, WHO IS WHOSE
FAMILY, YOU KNOW, MIGHT HAVE PUT
AN APPLICATION INTO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND DID IT ON THEIR
OWN. AND BECAUSE THEY'RE THEY
THEY DIDN'T HAVE HELP INITIALLY
MIGHT END UP IN IMMIGRATION
COURT, AND THEY NEED SOMEONE TO
DEFEND THEM TO ENSURE THAT
THEY'RE NOT DEPORTED WHEN YOU
HAVE AN ATTORNEY, YOU'RE MUCH
MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED IN THAT
APPLICATION. AND WHEN YOU DON'T,
FRANKLY, THE RATE OF REMOVAL OR
DEPORTATION IS VERY HIGH. WELL,
YOU KNOW, I USED TO BE A LAWYER.
I DON'T CONSIDER MYSELF MUCH OF
ONE ANYMORE, BUT I AM SENSITIVE
TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE FOLKS
THAT WE'VE BEEN ASSISTING IN THE
SYSTEM, WHATEVER PART OF THE
SYSTEM IT IS. AND I DON'T SEE
HOW YOU TURN OFF THE TAP AND
SAY, YOU DON'T GET ANY MORE HELP
IN THE PARTICULARLY IN THE
MIDDLE OF A IMMIGRATION, COURT
PROCEEDING AND, AND EVEN PERHAPS
THE SAME FOR THE NON COURT
PROCEEDINGS, WE HAVE TO FIGURE
OUT A WAY YOU CAN CUT THE TAP
OFF AND SAY, NO MORE CASES, NO
MORE PEOPLE IF YOU ABSOLUTELY
HAVE TO. AND THAT'S TRAGIC. BUT
WHAT'S EVEN MORE TRAGIC IS TO
HAVE SOMEONE IN THE SYSTEM
THAT'S A HIGHLY COMPLICATED
LEGAL SYSTEM, INVOLVED IN A
PROCESS AND THEN SAY TO MORROW,
TAPS OFF, LIGHTS OFF, SORRY,
CHARLIE, WE CAN'T HELP YOU
ANYMORE. YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK
THAT THE COMBINATION OF
ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE THESE
SERVICES, THE REALITY IS SOME
WILL BE ABLE TO RETAIN A SMALL
PORTION AND CONTINUE PROVIDING
REPRESENTATION. BUT AS LAWYERS,
YOU HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION,
TO, TO REPRESENT. AND IF YOU YOU
CANNOT DO THAT IN MANY CASES
PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO WITHDRAW
FROM THE CASE AND THE PERSON
WILL BE LEFT AGAIN WITHOUT AN
ATTORNEY. THAT'S THE REALITY.
AND BECAUSE IT'S NOT MANDATED,
THERE'S NO COURT THAT CAN SAY
YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE TO
REPRESENT THEM, FIGURE IT OUT.
NO I MEAN, THESE NONPROFITS
REALLY MAKE WINE OUT OF WATER.
SO OR WATER OUT OF, YOU KNOW,
LIKE BIBLICAL REFERENCES. BUT
YOU GET MY POINT. IT'S I MISSED
THAT CATECHISM. ALL OF THE ALL
OF THE ISSUES, TRAGICALLY, THAT
THIS BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE AND
THIS CHAIR HAVE TO DEAL WITH
ARE, VITAL, CRITICAL AND THE
PROPOSALS ARE TERRIBLE, AND THE
CHAIR TALKS ABOUT TRIAGING, AS
SHE SHOULD. BUT IN THIS, IN THIS
CONTEXT WHERE YOU HAVE LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS OF ONE SORT OR
ANOTHER THAT ARE ONGOING,
WHETHER IT'S ACTUAL COURT
PROCEEDINGS OR THE STUFF THAT
LEADS UP TO COURT PROCEEDINGS, I
DON'T SEE HOW WE CUT THE MONEY,
SO WE'LL HAVE TO FIGURE THAT
OUT. I AGREE 100. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. SENATOR EGGMAN, NO.
OKAY. CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR, I
HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. OUTSIDE
OF THIS TOPIC. ACTUALLY, I
WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE STOP
THE HATE PROGRAM. IT LOOKS LIKE
WE HAVE UNSPENT DOLLARS OR
UNCOMMITTED DOLLARS.
APPROXIMATELY $9 MILLION. THAT
HASN'T GONE OUT. OR MAYBE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DIRECTOR
JOHNSON, THE BIG BOSS HAS AN
ANSWER. SHE'S GOT HER BINDER.
OKAY KIM JOHNSON, DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTION, SENATOR. YES, WE
DO, THAT THOSE DOLLARS ARE ARE
CURRENTLY EARMARKED AND
ALLOCATED FOR A FEW THINGS
INCLUSIVE OF HAVING A
COLLABORATIVE KIND OF LEARNING
COMMUNITY OF ALL OF THE GRANTEES
TO IDENTIFY SOME OPPORTUNITIES
FOR SYNERGY. THERE'S A LITTLE
BIT OF THAT MONEY THAT'S FOR
EVALUATION AS WELL, BUT WE ARE
INTENDING TO GET THOSE DOLLARS
OUT THE DOOR. WE CAN GIVE THE
COMMITTEE A WRITTEN RESPONSE
THAT GIVES THE SPECIFICS OF
EXACTLY WHAT THOSE DOLLARS ARE
INTENDED TO DO. BUT YES, TODAY
THOSE DOLLARS ARE NOT CURRENTLY
EXPENDED. VOIGTS DIRECTOR
IDENTIFY VÌ FOR SYNERGY. HOW
DOES THAT TRUMP THIS OR
CALWORKS? OH, I DON'T KNOW.
DIRECTOR I DO KNOW THAT DOES NOT
TRUMP ANY OF THE ISSUES IN SUB
THREE A DIRECTOR. WE NEED TO
REALIGN THOSE $9 MILLION
ELSEWHERE THAT I MEAN, IF IT'S
NOT TO FUND ACTUAL SERVICES, IF
IT'S FOR ANOTHER FREAKING
WORKGROUP, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT FOR
A WORKGROUP. PLEASE LET ME LEAVE
YOU WITH THE IMPRESSION OF THAT.
THE STOP THE HATE PROGRAM IS
FUNDING COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE $9
MILLION REALLOCATION. YES. YES,
ONLY THAT PART THE STOP THE
HATE. I UNDERSTAND THAT PROGRAM.
OKAY, I UNDERSTAND, BUT LIKE THE
REALIGNMENT OF THESE EXTRA
UNCOMMITTED DOLLARS, IF WE'RE
NOT PUTTING IT BACK INTO
SERVICES, ACTUAL SERVICES, WE
GOT TO PUT THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
I MEAN, WE YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. AND
WE'RE GLAD TO GIVE YOU THE
SPECIFICS OF THE DETAILS OF THE
PLAN FOR THAT. YEAH. LET'S I
WOULD LIKE TO I'D LIKE TO SEE
THE LIST. BUT AGAIN, IF THAT
LIST IS NOT SAYING 1 MILLION IS
GOING TO PROVIDE FREE DIAPERS TO
THIS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO, SAY
THAT THAT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN
THIS OR WHAT WE JUST HEARD
ABOUT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
DIRECTOR. ALL RIGHT. NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I
APPRECIATE YOUR BIG HEARTS. OKAY
JACKIE, KEEP UP THE AMAZING
WORK. THAT'S ROUGH MAN. THAT'S
ROUGH. AND I APPRECIATE SHANNON
LEFT BECAUSE SHE WASN'T GOING TO
BE. SHE WAS THERE. SO. YEAH,
THAT'S. OKAY, BEFORE WE BEGIN
THIS PANEL, I HAVE TWO,
STAKEHOLDERS THAT HAVE WERE ARE
ABOUT TO MISS THEIR FLIGHT. SO
I'M GOING TO ALLOW TWO
STAKEHOLDERS TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
COMMENT. YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE
EACH. YES THAT'S ALL YOU GET.
SORRY. OKAY TWO PEOPLE. I GOT IT
. OKAY. TIME COUNTS. SHOULD I
START NOW? YES GO AHEAD. HI, MY
NAME IS MONIQUE ROSAS. I'M A
PARENT LEADER WITH PARENT VOICES
OF CALIFORNIA. I'M FROM, SAN
DIEGO. WE FLEW HERE EARLY THIS
MORNING, 3 A.M, I JUST WANTED TO
SHARE. I'M A SINGLE MOTHER OF A
TEN YEAR OLD SON WITH ADHD AND
AUTISM. I'M HERE TO REJECT THE
PROPOSED DOUBLE CUTS THE COUCH
PROGRAM, I JUST WANT TO MENTION
THAT FOR ME, IN 2018 AND 2019,
WHEN I WAS THE SINGLE PARENT
WITH A THREE YEAR OLD AND I
DIDN'T HAVE ANY MONEY OR
ANYTHING, THE CALWORKS PROGRAM
HELPED ME. SORRY. IT MEANS A LOT
TO ME THAT I'M HERE TO SAY THIS.
I COME ALL THE WAY FROM THERE.
SO HOLD ON. I DID NOT HAVE A
CARD AND HAVE A JOB AND HAVE
ANYTHING. NO CHILD CARE. AND I
NEEDED CHILD CARE TO LOOK FOR A
JOB. THE COUCH SYSTEM WAS THERE
FOR ME TO ALLOWED ME TO, FIND
THESE PROGRAMS WHERE I WENT TO
KITCHENS FOR GOOD AND GRADUATED
THERE FOR CULINARY,
APPRENTICESHIP ALLOWED ME TO
WORK AND THAT, SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT WAS WHAT SAVED MY
LIFE WITH MY SON. AND I ALSO WAS
ABLE TO TAKE A LEAP TO
CONFIDENCE PROGRAM, CLASS FOR
WOMEN, WHICH ALLOWED ME TO BE
PROUD OF MYSELF AND NOT
APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT I HAVE TO SAY
AND WHO I AM, AND THEN I ALSO
WENT TO A RECOVERY PROGRAM AT
MCALLISTER, AND I GRADUATED FROM
THERE. SUPER IMPORTANT FOR
PEOPLE LIKE US THAT HAVE THESE
PROGRAMS BECAUSE IT SAVES LIVES.
IT SAVES ME. I WOULD NOT BE HERE
STANDING HERE SAYING THIS RIGHT
NOW IF IT WASN'T FOR THE
CALWORKS PROGRAM. AND I JUST
WANT TO PUT EMPHASIS ON THAT.
THANK YOU. PLEASE GIVE PARENTS
AND PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SUCCEED LIKE I HAD A CHANCE TO.
AND THAT'S ALL I ASK. IF YOU CAN
SHARE THAT TESTIMONIES WITH THE
GOVERNOR, PLEASE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU THANKS. I'LL TRY MY
BEST. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
ALEXIS PRIMO. I AM AN ORGANIZING
FELLOW WITH PARENT VOICES IN SAN
DIEGO. I'M ALSO A SINGLE PARENT
OF TWO YOUNG CHILDREN, EATON,
SIX, AND ZARA, FIVE. THIS IS MY
LAST SEMESTER AT SAN DIEGO MESA
COLLEGE. I'LL BE GRADUATING WITH
MY ASSOCIATES IN PSYCHOLOGY,
BLACK STUDIES, AND SOCIAL WORK
AND WAS ACCEPTED INTO SDSU TO
PURSUE AFRICANA STUDIES AND
URBAN STUDIES THIS FALL. TODAY,
I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF
ONE OF OUR PARENT LEADERS, AJA
WALTERS. SHE'S A SINGLE PARENT
TO HER NINE MONTH OLD SON AND IS
CURRENTLY A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. SINCE NOVEMBER OF
2023, SHE HAS MADE OVER TWO
DOZEN CALLS TO NUMEROUS AND SENT
NUMEROUS EMAILS TO FAMILY
STABILIZATION, HOUSING SUPPORT
AND OTHER PROGRAMS. BUT BUT KEPT
BEING REFERRED TO OTHER PEOPLE
AND AGENCIES TO END UP WITH
BARELY ANY ASSISTANCE. AJA WAS
SUPPOSED TO BE HERE TODAY, BUT
TO TELL HER STORY, BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO STRESS,
ANXIETY, AND FEAR OF HER LIFE,
SHE WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT ON
THE PLANE WITH HER NINE MONTH
OLD ALONE. THIS SYSTEM IS
FAILING MOTHERS LIKE ASIA. SHE
IS CURRENTLY SURVIVING THROUGH
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITH THE HOPES
OF RECEIVING ADEQUATE
ASSISTANCE. THERE ARE MANY
PARENTS WHO HAVEN'T SURVIVED,
AND I TRUST WE IMPLEMENT THIS
MUCH NEEDED CHANGE BECAUSE
PARENTS LIKE ASIA LIVES DEPEND
ON IT. WE CAN'T CUT. WE CAN'T
CUT PROGRAMS LIKE FAMILY
STABILIZATION AND SUBSIDIZE
EMPLOYMENT THAT ALREADY DON'T
HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS. THIS WOULD BE
LEADING US IN THE OPPOSITE
DIRECTION. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MOVING
BACK TO ISSUE NUMBER FOUR, ET
THEFT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE,
CONVERSATIONS BE KICKED OFF. I
HAVE YOUR NAME HERE, ALEXIS,
FROM THE DEPARTMENT. I THINK
IT'S ACTUALLY ME, RYAN GILLETTE,
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES. I'M JUST KIDDING. I
SKIPPED RYAN. YES GOOD TO GO.
ALL RIGHT, GOOD MORNING OR
AFTERNOON, CHAIRPERSON MENGIBAR,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS RYAN GILLETTE. I'M THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE RESEARCH
AUTOMATION AND DATA DIVISION AT
THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES. AND I'LL BE ANSWERING
QUESTIONS TODAY ABOUT THE EBT
PROGRAM, JUMPING INTO THE
QUESTIONS, STARTING OFF, ABOUT
THE IMPACT OF EBT THEFT ON
CALWORKS AND CALFRESH AND OTHER
PUBLIC BENEFIT RECIPIENTS,
CALFRESH AND CALWORKS BENEFITS
ARE, AMONG OTHERS, ARE ISSUED ON
EBT CARDS FOR CLIENT USE. EBT
CARDS ARE USED BY SWIPING THE
MAGNETIC STRIPE FOR IN-PERSON
TRANSACTIONS, WHICH MAKES THEM
VULNERABLE TO, IN PARTICULAR,
SKIMMING FRAUD. MALICIOUS ACTORS
USE SKIMMING DEVICES INSTALLED
AT ATMS AND POINT OF SALE
TERMINALS TO CAPTURE EBT CARD
INFORMATION, CREATE CLONED
CARDS, AND THEN USE THIS TO
CONDUCT FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS
THAT LEAVE LEGITIMATE
CARDHOLDERS, BENEFIT S DRAINED.
EBT THEFT HAS INCREASED
SUBSTANTIALLY OVER THE PAST 24
MONTHS. VICTIMS OF EBT THEFT MAY
FIND THEMSELVES UNABLE TO PAY
RENT, BUY FOOD FOR THEIR
FAMILIES, AND MANAGE OTHER
ESSENTIAL EXPENSES. WHILE
COUNTIES ARE EXPECTED TO REPLACE
THE BENEFITS WITHIN TEN DAYS
AFTER THEFT IS REPORTED. EVEN
SHORT INTERRUPTIONS CAN HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON
BENEFICIARIES FINANCES IN TERMS
OF FEDERAL CHANGES TO STOLEN
SNAP BENEFITS, CALIFORNIA HAS
BEEN REPLACING ELECTRONICALLY
STOLEN CALFRESH BENEFITS WITH
GENERAL FUND DOLLARS SINCE 2021,
THIS CHANGED ON DECEMBER 1ST OF
2023, WHEN THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE'S FOOD AND NUTRITION
SERVICES, OR FNS, BEGAN
REIMBURSING THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR ELECTRONIC THEFT
OF CALFRESH, OR SNAP BENEFITS,
WITH FEDERAL FUNDS WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL ACTION OF THE FEDERAL
LEVEL. HOWEVER, FEDERAL
AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE
REIMBURSING STATE AGENCIES FOR
ELECTRONICALLY STOLEN SNAP
BENEFITS WILL EXPIRE ON OCTOBER
1ST OF THIS YEAR. 2024.
CALIFORNIA DOES CONTINUE TO
REPLACE ELECTRONICALLY STOLEN
CASH BENEFITS WITH STATE GENERAL
FUND DOLLARS, AND IS PREPARED TO
REVERT BACK TO THIS PROCESS FOR
CALFRESH IF ACTIONS ARE NOT
TAKEN TO FEDERALLY TO CONTINUE
SNAP REIMBURSEMENT. IN TERMS OF
GENERAL FUND COSTS IN FISCAL
YEAR 2022 2023, THE STATE
REIMBURSED APPROXIMATELY $75
MILLION IN CALWORKS OR CASH
BENEFITS OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND
AND $32 MILLION IN CALFRESH OR
FOOD BENEFITS. ALSO OUT OF THE
GENERAL FUND, FOR A TOTAL OF
ABOUT $109 MILLION FOR FY 2324
WE PROJECTED REIMBURSEMENTS AT
AN ESTIMATED $142 MILLION IN
GENERAL FUND IMPACT FOOD
REPLACEMENTS WERE PROJECTED AT
72 MILLION, BUT DUE TO A FEDERAL
REIMBURSEMENT POLICY, THE IMPACT
WOULD ONLY BE ABOUT 25 MILLION.
SO THE TOTAL PROJECTED IMPACT
WAS 214 MILLION, OF WHICH 168
MILLION WAS GENERAL FUND. WE CAN
GIVE YOU A TABLE WITH ALL OF
THIS IF YOU WOULD LIKE THOSE
NUMBERS LATER, IN TERMS OF THE
IMPACT ON ACTUAL HOUSEHOLDS, WE
DON'T HAVE PERFECT DATA ON THIS
JUST BECAUSE THE WAY THAT IT'S
REPORTED TO THE STATE. BUT WE
ESTIMATE THAT BETWEEN NOVEMBER
OF 2022 AND OCTOBER OF 2023,
APPROXIMATELY 200,000 HOUSEHOLDS
HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF SOME FORM
OF EBT THEFT. OF THOSE, ABOUT
25,000 WERE VICTIMIZED TWO OR
MORE TIMES IN TOTAL, THIS
REPRESENTS ABOUT 5% OF THE TOTAL
HOUSEHOLDS ON THE CASELOAD,
MOVING ON TO THE ROLLOUT OF EBT
TECHNOLOGY SECURITY
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING CHIP AND
TAP ENABLED CARDS IN PARTNERSHIP
WITH OUR PARTNERS AT THE OFFICE
OF TECHNOLOGY AND SOLUTIONS
INTEGRATION, OR OTSI, OUR EBT
VENDOR, FIS AND FEDERAL PARTNERS
CDSS IS LEADING EFFORTS TO
IMPROVE CARD SECURITY AND
PROTECT BENEFITS BY REPLACING
THESE MAGSTRIPE CARDS WITH CHIP,
EMV AND TAP ENABLED CARDS FOR
EBT IN CALIFORNIA. DEPLOYMENT OF
NEW CARDS IS SLATED TO BEGIN
THIS SUMMER. THIS YEAR,
CALIFORNIA IS ON TRACK TO BE THE
FIRST STATE IN THE COUNTRY TO
DEPLOY THIS NEW CARD SECURITY
TECHNOLOGY. PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION, EBT MERCHANTS
MUST PERFORM ESSENTIAL SOFTWARE
UPDATES IN ORDER TO ACCEPT EBT
TRANSACTIONS WITH THE NEW CARDS,
EBT RETAILERS ARE REQUIRED TO
UPDATE THEIR POINT OF SALE
TERMINALS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO
ACCEPT THIS NEW CHIP TAP
TECHNOLOGY. THE TOKENS AND
PROCESSED TRANSACTIONS
ACCORDINGLY. THE POINT OF SALE
DEVICES AND THE SOFTWARE THEY
RUN ARE MANAGED BY A SET OF
THIRD PARTY TRANSACTION
PROCESSORS. THIS MEANS THAT ANY
CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM MUST BE
CLOSELY COORDINATED WITH
RETAILERS, TRANSACTION
PROCESSORS, OR EBT VENDOR FIS
AND OTHER FEDERAL OVERSIGHT
BODIES THAT HELP ENSURE
CONSISTENT PRACTICES ARE BEING
ADOPTED NATIONALLY. BEFORE THE
ROLLOUT OF NEW CARDS, WE ARE
CONDUCTING EXTENSIVE TESTING TO
ENSURE THAT THE NEW
FUNCTIONALITY WORKS AS EXPECTED,
AND IN PARTICULAR, THAT IT DOES
NOT DISABLE THE SYSTEM. FOR
RETAILERS WHO MAY NOT HAVE
UPDATED THEIR POINT OF SALE
TERMINALS PRIOR TO NEW CARD
DEPLOYMENT. WE ARE ALSO IN
DISCUSSION WITH OUR FEDERAL
OVERSIGHT PARTNER, FNS, TO
DETERMINE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO
NATIONAL INTEROPERABILITY. WE
ARE IN EARLY STAGES OF TESTING
TO DETERMINE ANSWERS TO THESE
QUESTIONS. KDSS HAS LIMITED
ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THE TIMING
OF RETAILER AND TRANSACTION
PROCESSOR UPDATES, BUT IS
CLOSELY WORKING WITH FNS AND
PAYMENT PROCESSOR INDUSTRY
LEADERS IN THE MEANTIME, KDSS
AND OTSI ARE ADVANCING EQUIPMENT
CONFIGURATION AND DEPLOYMENT
ACTIVITIES IN AN EFFORT TO
PROVIDE COUNTY WELFARE
DEPARTMENTS WITH THE EQUIPMENT
NEEDED TO PROVIDE CHIP TAP CARDS
OVER THE COUNTY OVER THE COUNTER
AT COUNTY WELFARE OFFICES.
BEYOND CHIP TAP, WE HAVE BEEN
ENGAGING IN SOME OTHER SECURITY
ENHANCEMENT EFFORTS THAT JUST
WANT TO QUICKLY RUN THROUGH FOR
YOUR AWARENESS, SO, LATE LAST
YEAR, NOVEMBER 2023, WE LAUNCHED
EBT EDGE. THIS IS A MOBILE
PORTAL THAT CLIENTS CAN USE TO
PROTECT THEIR BENEFITS. IT
ENABLES CARD SECURITY
FUNCTIONALITIES LIKE CARD
FREEZING, PIN CHANGES, BLOCKING
OUT-OF-STATE TRANSACTIONS,
BLOCKING ONLINE TRANSACTIONS,
ALL SELF-SERVICE. THIS IS ALSO
AVAILABLE THROUGH WEBSITE. IT'S
ALSO AVAILABLE THROUGH THE IVR
PHONE TREE. SO LOTS OF WAYS FOR
CLIENTS TO TAKE CONTROL OF
SECURITY INTO THEIR OWN HANDS.
WE'VE ISSUED NUMEROUS PUBLIC
SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS ALERTING
PEOPLE OF THE RISK OF ET THEFT
AND WHAT THEY CAN DO TO SECURE
THOSE THOSE THEIR CARDS. WE
DISPLAY THESE IN ENGLISH AND
SPANISH, AND THE LOBBIES OF
COUNTY OFFICES. WE TRIED SOME
DIRECT CLIENT OUTREACH
CAMPAIGNS. WE CONDUCTED A TEXT
MESSAGING CAMPAIGN TO ENCOURAGE
CALWORKS BENEFICIARIES TO CHANGE
THEIR PINS. AND THIS RESULTED IN
OVER 350 FAMILIES ACTUALLY
CHANGING THEIR PINS AS WE WERE
ABLE TO DIRECTLY MEASURE THAT.
THE IMPACT OF THAT, AND WE ALSO
CREATED AN INFORMATIONAL MAILERS
THAT GO OUT WITH NEW CARDS AND
JUST OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO
RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THINGS
THAT PEOPLE CAN DO TO PROTECT
THEIR CARDS. WE NOW HAVE A
DEDICATED FRAUD TEAM FROM IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH OUR, VENDOR FIS
. THOSE RESOURCES HAVE BEEN
REALLY VALUABLE IN HELPING US
IDENTIFY THEFT PATTERNS AND
OTHER DATA ANALYSIS THAT CAN BE
USED TO ENHANCE SECURITY. WE
IMPLEMENTED THE CARD
VERIFICATION VALUE, WHICH IS THE
THREE DIGITS THAT ARE ON THE
BACK OF A CARD. THAT IS, REALLY
HELPFUL IN PREVENTING SCAMMING
TECHNOLOGY, AND SINCE WE
IMPLEMENTED THAT, WE ACTUALLY
HAVE SEEN A 95% REDUCTION IN
SCAMMING, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT
TYPE OF STEALING PEOPLE'S
INFORMATION. FINALLY, IN TERMS
OF PARTNERSHIPS WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT, WE REGULARLY
INTERACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACROSS LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
ACROSS THE STATE, BOTH THE
LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL,
INCLUDING THE US SECRET SERVICE,
FBI, USDA, OIG, AND HAVE HAD
NUMEROUS OPERATIONS THAT HAVE
HAVE NETTED ARRESTS THAT WILL
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MORE IN
A MINUTE, AFTER THE DEPLOYMENT
OF CHIP AND TAP, WE DO PLAN TO
CONTINUE MONITORING THEFT
ACTIVITY, AND WE WILL
PROACTIVELY PURSUE ADDITIONAL
SECURITY MEASURES THAT CAN
CONTINUE TO ENHANCE THE
PROTECTIONS THAT WE ARE
PROVIDING TO OUR CARDHOLDERS IN
RESPONSE TO THE RESOURCES THAT
WERE APPROPRIATED LAST YEAR TO
INVESTIGATE INSTANCES OF ET
THEFT, THE DEPARTMENT CONTINUES
TO COLLABORATE WITH LOCAL, STATE
AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
AUTHORITIES TO MITIGATE THE
THEFT OF EBT BENEFITS AND BLOCK
SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS,
INCLUDING IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL
PERPETRATORS, LOCATING WHERE
SCAMMERS MAY HAVE BEEN PLACED,
AND THEN SENDING TEAMS TO TRY TO
REMOVE THEM BEFORE THE THEFT
EVEN OCCURS. MULTIPLE
INVESTIGATIONS ARE CURRENTLY
ONGOING, AND ARRESTS HAVE BEEN
MADE. THE INVESTIGATIVE UNIT
THAT WE RECEIVE FUNDING FOR
EARLIER CONSISTS OF, ONE SUPER
SPECIAL SUPERVISORY
INVESTIGATOR, TWO SPECIAL
INVESTIGATORS AND ONE PROGRAM
ANALYST. THAT WAS ESTABLISHED
WITH FUNDING FROM THE PRIOR
BUDGET YEAR. HAS BEEN PROVIDING
INTELLIGENCE AND SUPPORT TO THE
VARIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
FOR THESE EFFORTS. SINCE 2022,
WE'VE MADE MORE THAN 140 ARRESTS
AND OVER 200 TERMINAL IDS THAT
WE SUSPECTED HAVE BEEN
SUSPICIOUS, HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN
JUST EARLIER THIS MONTH,
ACTUALLY, CDSS ASSISTED IN AN
OPERATION WITH HOMELAND SECURITY
IN LOS ANGELES, WHERE TWO
INDIVIDUALS WERE ARRESTED AT AN
ATM LOCATION USING MULTIPLE
CLONED EBT CARDS. AND IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY LAST MONTH, SEVEN
INDIVIDUALS THAT APPEARED TO BE
PART OF AN ORGANIZED CRIME RING
WERE ARRESTED AND CHARGED IN
CONNECTION WITH THEFT OF
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS. IF CONVICTED, THEY
COULD FACE UP TO 10 TO 15 YEARS
IN PRISON, AND IN COORDINATION
WITH NATIONAL PARTNERS, HAS ALSO
LED TO ARRESTS OF INDIVIDUALS IN
OTHER STATES, TOO. SO, FOR
EXAMPLE, AN INDIVIDUAL IS
RECENTLY TAKEN INTO CUSTODY IN
MICHIGAN WHO POSSESSED SEVERAL
STOLEN EBT CARDS AND A CARD
SKIMMER DEVICE. SO HOPEFULLY
THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT WE ARE
TAKING EBT THEFT VERY SERIOUSLY,
AND WE INTEND TO PROSECUTE
PERPETRATORS TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT OF THE LAW IN TERMS OF
CHANGES THAT CDSS AND COUNTIES
HAVE MADE TO MAKE IT QUICKER AND
EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO FOR VICTIMS
TO HAVE THEIR BENEFITS REPLACED,
WE Kò PROCESSING OF EBT,
ELECTRONIC THEFT CLAIMS IS A
TREMENDOUS WORKLOAD FOR COUNTIES
. WE. WHILE WE ANTICIPATE THAT
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CHIP TAP
CARDS WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE
THIS BURDEN, CDSS HAS TAKEN
OTHER MEASURES TO SUPPORT
COUNTIES IN ISSUING TIMELY
REPLACEMENT OF STOLEN BENEFITS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE
RECENTLY JUST LAUNCHED IN MARCH
OF THIS YEAR WAS WE AUTOMATED
THE EBT 2259 FORM, WHICH IS THE
FORM THAT CLIENTS HAVE TO USE TO
REPORT THAT THEFT HAS OCCURRED.
SO THIS IS THAT USED TO BE A
PAPER FORM THAT PEOPLE HAD TO
FILL OUT. IT'S NOW A DIGITAL
FORM THAT THEY CAN FILL OUT
THROUGH BENEFITS. CAL, WHICH IS
THE ONLINE PORTAL BY WHICH
CLIENTS MANAGE THEIR BENEFITS.
THAT SHOULD HOPEFULLY EXPEDITE
THE PROCESS AND EASE THE EFFORT
ON ON THE COUNTY ELIGIBILITY
WORKERS SIDE AS WELL, WE ALSO
HAVE REMOVED BARRIERS TO
ELECTRONIC THEFT REPORTING IN
JANUARY OF 2023, CDSS ISSUED ACL
2313, IN AN EFFORT TO STREAMLINE
THE ELECTRONIC THEFT REPORTING
PROCESS BY UPDATING THE EBT 2259
CLAIM FORM. IN RESPONSE TO
FEEDBACK FROM ADVOCATES AND
CARDHOLDERS. THIS REVISED
PROCESS REMOVED KNOWN CLIENT
BARRIERS TO SUBMITTING REQUESTS
FOR REIMBURSEMENT BY ELIMINATING
THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS TO
FILE A POLICE REPORT BEFORE THEY
COULD SUBMIT THIS FORM, AND TO
FILE A CLAIM WITH THE EBT
VENDOR, REMOVING THESE TWO
REQUIREMENTS ALLOWS VICTIMS TO
SUBMIT A CLAIM FOR
REIMBURSEMENTS MORE EXPEDIENTLY
AND REDUCES THE CLAIM FORM
FIELDS THAT COUNTIES MUST ENSURE
ARE COMPLETED BEFORE ISSUING A
REPLACEMENT. OTHER EFFORTS. WE.
WE ALSO HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGING
DIRECT DEPOSIT SO CLIENTS ARE
ABLE TO HAVE THEIR BENEFITS
DEPOSITED DIRECTLY INTO THEIR
BANK ACCOUNT. AND SO FOR CLIENTS
FOR WHOM THAT MAKES SENSE, WE
ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO THAT. I
MENTIONED EBT EDGE AS AS A
RESOURCE THAT PEOPLE HAVE
AVAILABLE TO THEM. AND AND,
YEAH, I'LL LEAVE THAT AT THEIR
FINAL, THE LAST QUESTION WAS IN
RESPONSE TO IF THERE IS A
PROCESS FOR RECOVERING STOLEN
SUMMER EBT BENEFITS. SUMMER EBT
IS A FEDERAL PROGRAM, AND AT THE
MOMENT IT'S NOT AUTHORIZED FOR
REPLACEMENT OF ELECTRONICALLY
STOLEN BENEFITS. HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS, RYAN. SO WE'RE
WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT, THE CARDS
WILL BE READY BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION OF THE FEDERAL
AUTHORITY FOR REIMBURSEMENT. SO
WE ARE WE ARE TRACKING FOR A
SUMMER IMPLEMENTATION ROLLOUT OF
THE CARDS. YES. OKAY SUMMER
BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30TH. YES.
OKAY. PERFECT MOVING ON TO SONIA
. LEO GOOD AFTERNOON, SONIA
RUSSO, WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE. OUR OFFICE
PLANS TO CONTINUE MONITORING THE
BENEFIT REPLACEMENT EFFORTS AND
THE ROLLOUT OF THE NEW CARDS FOR
ANY KEY TAKEAWAYS OR ISSUES TO
SHARE WITH THE LEGISLATURE.
OKAY. SHORT AND SWEET, MOVING ON
TO REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE HUMAN
SERVICES. HUMAN SERVICES, DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY. GILBERT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, MY NAME IS
GILBERT RAMOS. I CURRENTLY SERVE
AS DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER OVER
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY. PRIOR TO
MY CURRENT ASSIGNMENT, I SERVED
AS THE DIRECTOR FOR SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSITIONAL
ASSISTANCE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING
THE CALWORKS, CALFRESH AND OTHER
SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS. TODAY,
I'D LIKE TO SHARE OUR EXPERIENCE
WITH EBT THEFT. IN MID TO LATE
2021, WE STARTED TO SEE AN
INCREASE IN THE EBT THEFT,
SKIMMING AND SCAMMING. PRIOR TO
THIS NOTED INCREASE, WE WOULD
RECEIVE ON AVERAGE ABOUT TEN
REPLACEMENTS PER MONTH. BUT IN
THE SUMMER OF 2021, WE STARTED
TO SEE THE REPLACEMENT REQUESTS
INCREASE TO THE 40S AND BY
DECEMBER OF 2021, WE HAD SEEN
277 REQUESTS FOR REPLACEMENTS
FROM OUR CUSTOMERS AS WE ROLLED
INTO 2022, WE CONTINUE TO SEE
THIS INCREASE IN REPLACEMENT
REQUESTS, THIS WAS ACCOMPANIED
WITH DIRECT IMPACTS TO OUR
CUSTOMERS WHO SUFFERED THESE
LOSSES. FURTHER OUR STAFF WHO
NEEDED TO ADDRESS THE DRAMATIC
WORKLOAD INCREASES TO REPLACE
THE REQUESTS. AS QUICKLY AND
TIMELY AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE WE
WANTED TO MAKE SURE OUR
CUSTOMERS WERE NOT, WITHOUT
THESE BENEFITS. TO ILLUSTRATE
THE INCREASE THAT WE SAW IN
2022, IN MARCH, THE AMOUNT OF
REQUESTS HAD JUMPED TO 332. IN
JULY, 404. BUT BY THE END OF THE
END OF THE YEAR, IN DECEMBER,
WE'RE UP TO 838 REQUESTS. A
PRETTY DRAMATIC IN REGARDS TO
DOLLARS AND BENEFITS
PERSPECTIVES. THIS WAS ABOUT A
$488,000 IN 2021 THAT WE
REISSUED AND REPLACEMENT
REQUEST, BUT BY THE END OF 2022,
WE HAD REISSUED $3.7 MILLION IN
REPLACEMENT REQUESTS. NOW, THESE
ARE CAL WORKS AND CALFRESH
BENEFITS THAT WERE STOLEN FROM
OUR CUSTOMERS, AND THAT CAN HAVE
AN INABILITY ON THEM TO PAY
THEIR RENT AND UTILITIES ON TIME
TO BUY GROCERIES FOR THEMSELVES
AND FOR THEIR CHILDREN, AS WELL
AS REQUIRE THEM TO GO THROUGH
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES TO
REQUEST THE REPLACEMENT REQUEST
AND GET THEIR BENEFITS RESTORED
TO THEM. PRIOR TO THESE MARKED
INCREASES IN EBT THEFTS,
ADDRESSING STOLEN EBT BENEFITS
WAS A MAYBE A ONE PERSON JOB AT
THE MOST PART TIME, IN ORDER TO
RESPOND TO THIS NEW WORKLOAD, IT
MEANS THAT WE HAD TO GET MORE
STAFF ON THE JOB SO THAT WE CAN
GET THE RESPONSE IS MET IN A
TIMELY AND AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE. SO WE INCREASED OUR
STAFF SLOWLY BY ADDING ANOTHER
STAFF MEMBER, ADDING SOME PART
TIME STAFF TO IT, ADDING
SPECIALIZED STAFF TO IT AND OF
COURSE HAVING OVERTIME STAFF
AVAILABLE AS WELL TO MAKE SURE
WE KEPT UP WITH THE DEMAND,
RECOGNIZING THIS WAS NOT JUST A
LOCAL ISSUE, WE STARTED TO
DISCUSS WITH OUR OTHER COUNTIES,
OUR NEIGHBORING COUNTIES, AS
WELL AS JUST OTHER COUNTIES
ACROSS THE STATE. WORKED WITH
OUR PARTNERS AT CWA VÀ AS WELL
AS WITH CDSS, WITH OUR
PARTNERSHIPS, WE BEGAN TO SEE
SOME POLICY CHANGES TO UPDATE
AND HELP MITIGATE THE THEFTS AND
IN ORDER TO RESPOND BETTER TO
THE REPLACEMENT REQUESTS AS WELL
AS JUST MAYBE GET SOME OF THE
POLICIES THAT RYAN HAD TALKED
ABOUT HERE JUST A LITTLE WHILE
AGO, ACTIONS SUCH AS REMOVING
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A POLICE
REPORT, FILING A CLAIM WITH THE
EBT VENDOR, AND THEN LOCALLY
JUST REVIEWING OUR OWN PROCESSES
FOR REVIEWING AND APPROVING THE
CLAIMS HELPED US RESPOND FASTER
AND QUICKER. GILBERT. RELATED TO
THAT, HAVE WE, AT LEAST IN YOUR
COUNTY, ADDRESSED SOME OF THE
CONCERNS WE HEARD LAST YEAR
REGARDING, LIKE YOU NEEDED A
SUPERVISOR TO APPROVE ALL THIS
AND LIKE, YEAH, THOSE ARE THE
THINGS THAT WE TRY TO IMPROVE
UPON AND MITIGATE. SO THAT WAY
WE CAN GET TO THE GET THE FORM
RESPONDED AND, REVIEWED AND SENT
OVER TO OUR TEAM THAT WAS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTUALLY DOING
THE REPLACEMENT. THESE ARE THE
THINGS THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
YOU'VE SEEN A LOT OF THE TIME.
CUT. YES. OKAY. GREAT. YES AND
SO MORE RECENTLY, EVEN WITH THE
TIME FRAME TO REPORT THE THEFTS,
THAT WERE CHANGED AND THEN ALSO,
AS RYAN MENTIONED, THE BENEFIT,
THE ONLINE FORM BEING ADDED TO
THE BENEFITS. CAL, ALL THESE
THINGS HOPEFULLY WILL HAVE A
BETTER RESPONSE TO THE
CUSTOMERS, TIME FRAME. THE HELP,
HELP WITH THE CUSTOMERS TIMELY
RESPONSES TO THE CLAIMS, STILL
YET IN 2023, WE CONTINUE TO SEE
THE NUMBERS OF REQUESTS
CONTINUE. THERE WAS OVER 18,000
REQUESTS IN SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY TO HAVE BENEFITS REPLACED
AND THE DOLLARS AND BENEFITS.
WHAT RESULTED IN $12.6 MILLION
IN 2023 THAT WERE REPLACED.
AGAIN, THESE ARE CALWORKS AND
CALFRESH BENEFITS. WHILE WE
CONTINUE TO REPLACE STOLEN
BENEFITS, OUR FRAUD
INVESTIGATORS, ALONG WITH LOCAL,
STATE, AND FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, WE
CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE TO
DISRUPT THE CRIMINAL
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR PERPETUATING
THESE CRIMES AGAINST OUR
CUSTOMERS WHO ARE THE MOST
VULNERABLE MEMBERS OF OUR
COMMUNITY. OUR FRAUD
INVESTIGATORS LOOKED INTO THE
CRIMES AND TEAMED UP WITH
SHERIFFS AND OTHER LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT, THEY DID FIND EARLY
ON THEY DID FIND ILLEGALLY
INSTALLED SKIMMING DEVICES,
MICRO CAMERAS ATTACHED TO THE
POINT OF SALES OR ATMS, WHICH
WERE KIND OF SOME OF THE EARLY
TECHNIQUES THAT CRIMINALS USE.
BUT CRIMINALS WERE ALWAYS SEEMED
TO BE ONE STEP AHEAD OF US AND
WERE GOING, INTO TO OTHER WAYS
TO, TO, TO, TO SKIM AND TO SCAM
AND TO CLONE AND DO OTHER THINGS
TO, TO STEAL THE BENEFITS FROM
OUR CUSTOMERS. BUT OUR FRAUD,
FRAUD INVESTIGATORS WERE
CONTINUING TO BE ACTIVE AND WORK
WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES, OTHER FRAUD
INVESTIGATORS AND OTHER COUNTIES
ALONG WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
BE AS, AS AS ACTIVE AS AS
POSSIBLE AND CONTINUE TO SHARE
WHAT THEY'RE FINDING AND WORKING
WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, AND TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE BROUGHT THESE
CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE. TO DATE,
WE CONTINUE TO SEE WIDESPREAD
THEFTS, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE DOING
OUR BEST TO PREVENT IT. WE STILL
WE ARE SEEING CONTINUE. WE ARE
CONTINUING TO BE RESPONSIVE AND
STAYING CURRENT ON OUR
REPLACEMENT REQUESTS WITH HAVING
AS MANY STAFF AS POSSIBLE
WORKING ASSIGNED TO THIS EFFORT,
WE CURRENTLY DO HAVE FIVE FULL
TIME STAFF AS WELL AS OTHER AD
HOC STAFF THAT CONTINUE TO HELP
AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
RESPONDING TO OUR REQUESTS
TIMELY WITHIN THE TEN DAY
REQUIREMENT, WE DO HAVE OVERTIME
OFFERED REGULARLY AS WELL, BUT
WE ARE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF
ACTUALLY JUST INCREASING IT TO
FULL TIME, ADDITIONAL FULL TIME
STAFF TO THE UNIT RESPONSIBLE
FOR RESPONDING TO THE
REPLACEMENT REQUEST. WE HAVE
SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED THE
RETRO REPLACEMENT REQUEST THAT
THAT THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO
ALLOW FOR GOING BACK. I BELIEVE
IT WAS TWO YEARS. AND AS WE ALL,
WE ALSO ARE CURRENTLY WITHIN THE
TIME FRAMES OF ALL KNOWN
REQUESTS. I DID ASK FOR AN
UPDATE BEFORE I CAME TODAY TO
TESTIFY AND WHAT I WAS GIVEN.
THE INFORMATION THAT I WAS GIVEN
WAS THAT WE WERE ALL THE KNOWN
REQUESTS THAT WERE WITHIN OUR
OUR OUR POSSESSION. WE ARE
WITHIN THE TEN DAY TIME FRAME.
NONETHELESS EACH AND EVERY
CUSTOMER THAT IS IMPACTED,
THOUGH THEY MAY BE EVENTUALLY
MADE WHOLE BY BY RESPONDING TO
THE REQUEST FOR REPLACEMENT, IT
DOESN'T COMPENSATE THEM FOR A
LATE FEE THAT THEY MAY BE
CHARGED BY THEIR LANDLORD, OR
MAYBE EMBARRASSMENT OF HAVING TO
LEAVE THEIR GROCERIES AT THE
COUNTER BECAUSE THEY HAVE A ZERO
BALANCE ON THEIR CARD BECAUSE
THEY HAVE BEEN STOLEN, OR THESE
KINDS OF THINGS CAN'T BE
COMPENSATED. IF YOU COULD START
WRAPPING UP, PLEASE. ABSOLUTELY.
AND WE WILL LOOK FORWARD TO WE
DO LOOK FORWARD TO THE FULL
ADOPTION OF THE EBT EDGE
APPLICATION. AS RYAN MENTIONED,
AS WELL AS THE CHIP ENABLED
TECHNOLOGY THAT'S COMING OUT
THIS SUMMER. AND UNTIL THEN,
WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO OUR PART TO
BALANCE OUR WORKLOAD PRIORITIES,
ENSURE THAT THESE ENSURE THAT
THESE VULNERABLE, CUSTOMERS OF
OURS ARE PROTECTED AND THOSE WHO
DEPEND ON US TO MEET THEIR BASIC
NEEDS ARE SERVED WITH INTEGRITY
AND COMPASSION. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. RYAN. CAN YOU QUICKLY JUST
COMMENT ON I KNOW YOU KNOW, HE
TALKED ABOUT HIS COUNTY IN
RELATION TO CUTTING SHAVING DOWN
TIME ON THE REVIEW PROCESS. HOW
ARE WE DOING IN THE REST OF THE
COUNTIES? YES. SO WE ACTUALLY
LOOKED INTO THIS. WE CONDUCTED A
SURVEY OF COUNTIES TO UNDERSTAND
THEIR PROCESSES AND WHERE THERE
MIGHT BE TIME IN THERE. WE
ACTUALLY FOUND WITH REGARDS TO
THE SUPERVISOR REVIEW QUESTION,
IN PARTICULAR, OVER 50% OF THE
RESPONDENTS ACTUALLY SAID THAT
THERE WAS SOMETHING MATERIALLY
CHANGING AS A RESULT OF THE
SUPERVISOR REVIEW. SO THERE
ACTUALLY IS VALUE TO THAT, AND
THEN OVER 67% OF THE RESPONDENTS
STATED THAT THE COUNTY
SUPERVISOR APPROVAL PROCESS WAS
COMPLETED WITHIN THREE DAYS OR
LESS, SO IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT
WAS A MEANINGFUL BURDEN. MY
SENSE IS THAT WE'RE PROBABLY NOT
GOING TO SHAVE TIME OFF BY
DOLLARS AND SENSING IT HERE. I
THINK IT'S JUST THERE'S A LOT OF
THESE REIMBURSEMENTS COMING IN
AND IT'S JUST A STAFF CASE.
THERE'S JUST TOO MANY OF THEM
FOR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT
ARE WORKING THERE. OKAY. THANK
YOU. MOVING ON TO,
REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLLEGE OF
CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS
ORGANIZATIONS. HI, KEVIN. KEVIN
ESTÁN, COALITION OF CALIFORNIA
WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, THE
EBT SKIMMING AND REFUSAL OF CDSS
AND COUNTY WELFARE OFFICIALS TO
PROVIDE TIMELY RELIEF TO VICTIMS
OF WIDESPREAD ELECTRONIC THEFT
IS HORRIFIC IN CALIFORNIA. JUST
THE OTHER DAY, A YOUNG LADY
CALLED ME FROM LA. SHE'S A
STUDENT, AND SHE, SHE WOKE UP IN
THE MORNING AND THOUSAND, $1,117
WAS SKIMMED FROM HER BENEFITS.
AND SHE WAS CRYING AND SHE
CALLED UP. THE WELFARE OFFICE
TOOK ABOUT THREE DAYS BEFORE SHE
COULD TALK TO SOMEONE. THEY SAID
THAT I WOULD TAKE 2 OR 3 WEEKS
BEFORE YOU COULD GET THE
REPLACEMENT, AND SHE FREAKED
OUT. AND FINALLY, COUNTY, I?
WHAT COUNTY? LA COUNTY. YEAH.
AND I INTERCEDED AND I TALKED TO
HER. SHE SHE SAID THANK YOU, BUT
NOT EVERYBODY COULD CALL ME. SO
MANY PEOPLE LIKE THAT. THIS IS
HAPPENING IN KERN COUNTY, I HAD
A CALL AND THEY WERE TOLD THAT
ONCE THEY ONCE THEY FILLED THE
FORM OUT. YOU HAVE TO WAIT 30
DAYS IN FACT, ONE OF MY CLIENTS
HAD WAITED 30 DAYS, AND THEY
STILL HAD NOT REPLACED IT. AND
WHAT HAPPENS THAT CHILDREN GO
HUNGRY, THEY GO TO SLEEP HUNGRY,
AND THEY GET A THREE DAY NOTICE
FOR NONPAYMENT OF RENT. AND THEN
AND THEN PRETTY SOON A 30 DAY
NOTICE AND THEY'RE OUT IN THE
STREETS. SO THE STATE LAW SAYS
THAT THEY HAVE TO DO A PROMPT
REPLACEMENT. AND IN AND THE
STATUTE SAYS THAT THE DEPARTMENT
SHALL ESTABLISH PROTOCOLS TO
MINIMIZE BURDEN ON RECIPIENTS
AND ENSURE PROMPT REPLACEMENT.
AND PROMPTLY PLACEMENT HAS BEEN
DEFINED TO BE TEN DAYS. NOW.
THEY COULD DO IT WITHIN 2 OR 3
DAYS. IN FACT, I'VE TALKED TO
COUNTY PEOPLE AND THEY'VE SAID
WE COULD DO THIS IN THREE DAYS.
ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS LOOK AT
THE SAR SYSTEM. THEY CALL SAHURS
AND SEE IF IT WERE SKIMMED AND
THEN REPLACE IT. SOME COUNTIES
CHOOSE TO HAVE SPECIFIED STAFF,
LIKE FIVE PEOPLE IN SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY. THOSE ARE THE
ONLY PEOPLE WHO COULD REPLACE IT
. WHY CAN'T THE WORKER DO IT?
YOU HAVE GOT HUNDREDS OF
WORKERS. YOU ONLY HAVE ABOUT A
THOUSAND CASES. ONE WORKER COULD
DO IT IN ONE DAY. IT WOULD TAKE
ONE HOUR TO DO IT. SO WHY THEN,
I MEAN, SO THE COUNTIES ARE
CREATING ALL THIS DELAY BY THEIR
BUSINESS PRACTICE. THEY WANT TO
HAVE A CONSOLIDATED GROUP OF
PEOPLE, FIVE PEOPLE, TO DO THE
REPLACEMENT, AND, AND, ALSO, THE
PROMPT, I MEAN, THE THEY CHANGED
THE LAW. IT USED TO BE THAT IF
YOU WERE, IF YOU WERE RIPPED OFF
OF MORE THAN $1,000, YOU WOULD
HAVE TO WAIT FOR 25 DAYS TO GET
THE REPLACEMENT IN ADDITION TO
THAT, YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE
INVESTIGATED BY THE WELFARE
FRAUD UNIT, BECAUSE YOU MUST
HAVE BEEN I MEAN, THERE MUST BE
SOME KIND OF CRIMINAL ACT THAT
YOU COMMITTED IN YOUR
VICTIMIZED. NOT ONLY ARE YOU A
VICTIM, ARE YOU BEING VICTIMIZED
BY THE THEFT, BUT ALSO BY THE
WELFARE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THEY
THINK THAT YOU ARE A CRIMINAL
AND THAT YOU HAVE TO THEY HAVE
TO DO WELFARE FRAUD
INVESTIGATION LA COUNTY HAS 226
COUNTY WELFARE FRAUD
INVESTIGATORS, AND THEY SHOULD
START OUT IN INVESTIGATING THE
ACTUAL FRAUD. FOLKS GO TO THESE
STORES AND THEY AND THEIR AND
THEIR CARDS ARE CLONED. THEY
COULD JUST GO IN AND LOOK AT THE
TAPE AND SEE WHO THE PERSON WAS
AND GO AND PICK THEM UP, IF YOU
COULD SEE, I MEAN, ON SLIDE
NUMBER FOUR, THERE WAS ABOUT
$150 MILLION THAT WERE SKIMMED
AND CALWORKS, LAST YEAR WHEN WE
WERE HERE, THE DSS SAYS THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE CHIP AND
TIP CHIP AND TAP CARD TO REPLACE
IT. SO WE SUGGESTED THAT WHY
DON'T YOU START YOUR CHIP AND,
CHIP AND TAP CARD RIGHT NOW FOR
CAL WORKS AND THEN AND THAT
COULD BE DONE IN THREE MONTHS.
AND THEN NEXT YEAR YOU COULD
COME BACK AND DO IT FOR CAL
WORKS AND CALFRESH DSS DECIDED
NOT TO DO THAT. THEY REJECTED
THAT. THEY DECIDED TO WAIT FOR
ANOTHER YEAR. AND IN FACT, IT
WAS SUPPOSED TO GO INTO MARCH.
THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID LAST YEAR.
NOW IT'S SUMMER. WE DON'T KNOW
EXACTLY WHEN IN SUMMER, JUNE,
JULY, AUGUST, MAYBE SEPTEMBER.
THAT MAY HAPPEN TO. WE HAVE NO
IDEA. THERE'S NO DEFINITE DATE.
THEY HAVEN'T TOLD US A DEFINITE
DATE THAT THIS IS GOING TO GO
INTO EFFECT. ALSO THAT, AND I
SHOULD NOTE THAT IN IN LA CAL
WORKS THE SKIM $4.4 MILLION A
MONTH START WRAPPING UP. KEVIN,
I'M SORRY. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO START WRAPPING UP. OKAY.
YEAH. I MEAN, WE WOULD RECOMMEND
THAT TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE TO
REPLACE, THE BENEFITS WITHIN
THREE DAYS. THAT COULD BE DONE.
AND WELFARE AND WELFARE FRAUD
INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE
INVESTIGATING CRIMINALS OF
ELECTRONIC, THE PEOPLE WHO
COMMIT THE FRAUD AND NOT THE AND
NOT THE VICTIMS MANDATE THAT
COUNSELORS MAKE THE FIRST
PRIORITY TO AUTOMATE SKIMMING
CLAIMS, PROCESSING BENEFITS. CAL
AND MANDATE THAT CHIP AND TAP
CARDS BE IN THE HANDS OF
BENEFICIARIES. NO LATER THAN
JULY 1ST, 2024. OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. RYAN, I'M COMING BACK
TO YOU. TWO QUESTIONS. FIRST,
JUST FOR MY CLARIFICATION AGO,
WHERE YOU NOTED THE ONLINE
BENEFIT, WHICH IS HELPFUL, IS
THAT FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GO
ONLINE AND PUT IN A, REPLACEMENT
REQUEST. SO, YES. SO THE EBT
2259 FORM THAT PEOPLE USE TO
REPLACE STOLEN BENEFITS, THAT IS
NOW DIGITAL, THAT IS A FORM THAT
PEOPLE CAN DO ONLINE. OKAY. AND
YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING
ASSISTANCE FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW TO HELP
FUND PART OF THE REPLACEMENTS.
AND SEPTEMBER 30TH, WE WILL NO
LONGER HAVE THAT. WHAT WHAT I
FEEL LIKE WE'RE WE'RE IN APRIL.
WE'RE FIVE MONTHS AWAY FROM THAT
. WE SHOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF
UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE WE THINK
WE'RE GOING TO KICK THIS OFF.
RIGHT? ARE WE? WE'RE READY. BUT
THERE'S JUST FINAL BUREAUCRATIC
THINGS THAT WE NEED TO FINISH OR
WE'RE NOT READY. AND WE REALLY
NEED THESE FULL FIVE MONTHS TO
FINALIZE THE TECHNOLOGY. WHICH
ONE IS IT? SO I'D SAY IT'S A
LITTLE BIT OF BOTH. I THINK THE,
THE STATE HAS DONE EVERYTHING ON
OUR PART THAT WE CAN DO TO BE
READY FOR THIS, BUT THE
CHALLENGE IS THAT THE SYSTEM IS
NOT JUST CALIFORNIA, IT'S A
NATIONAL SYSTEM. THERE ARE A LOT
OF PLAYERS BEYOND JUST THE STATE
IN THIS. THERE ARE THE RETAILERS
, THERE ARE THE TRANSACTION
PROCESSORS, THERE'S THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, THERE'S OTHER
STATES. AND SO ANY CHANGES THAT
WE WANT TO MAKE, WE HAVE TO
COORDINATE WITH ALL THESE
PARTNERS AND MAKE SURE THAT
WHATEVER WE DO DOESN'T
INADVERTENTLY CAUSE IMPACTS TO
THE BROADER SYSTEM AS A WHOLE,
BECAUSE THE LAST THING THAT WE
WANT TO DO IS TRY TO ROLL OUT A
SECURITY ENHANCEMENT THAT ENDS
UP PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM BEING
ABLE TO USE AN EBT CARD AT ALL,
EITHER WITHIN CALIFORNIA OR
ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. THERE
ARE FEDERAL INTEROPERABILITY
LAWS THAT REQUIRE PEOPLE TO BE
ABLE TO USE THEIR CARD IN NEW
YORK. IF THEY, YOU KNOW, HAPPEN
TO BE TRAVELING THERE, SO THOSE
PROCESSES ARE THE WILD CARD
HERE. I'D SAY THAT'S MAKING IT
HARDER FOR US TO TELL YOU
EXACTLY THE DATE THAT THIS WILL
HAPPEN, BUT WE ARE DOING WE ARE
MEETING REGULARLY, DAILY WITH,
WITH ALL OF THESE PARTNERS. AND
AS SOON AS WE HAVE THAT, WE'VE
ALL STACKED HANDS ON THE
TIMELINE FOR THAT. WE WILL WE
WILL LET YOU ALL KNOW. AND THEN
THIS SUMMER, ROLL OUT, IS IT
GOING TO BE A ROLLOUT FOR
EVERYONE OR ARE WE DOING A SLOW
ROLLOUT TO DEMOGRAPHICS? YEAH SO
WE HAVE A ROLLOUT PLAN, THE, THE
LIMITATION IS REALLY JUST WE CAN
ONLY PRINT AND MAIL OUT SO MANY
CARDS PER WEEK, AND SO WE'RE
GOING TO, WE'RE PRIORITIZING
FIRST, PEOPLE THAT ARE CALWORKS
AND THAT ARE ON CALWORKS AND
CALFRESH SO THAT WE CAN PROTECT
BOTH OF THEM, AND THEN WE WILL
BE FOCUSING ON JUST THE CALWORKS
CASES AND THEN JUST THE CALFRESH
CASES AND THEN EVERYONE ELSE.
OKAY, SO YOU'RE DOING BOTH AT
THE SAME TIME IN THE BEGINNING
THAT PEOPLE THAT ARE DUAL
ENROLLED IN BOTH PROGRAMS, DUAL
ENROLLED. GOT IT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR THAT. OKAY. WE'RE GOING
TO TURN TO OUR LAST PANELIST,
PARENT ADVOCATE FROM THE STUDENT
PARENTS OR REIMAGINING CALWORKS.
GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. I'M
CURTIS WOODSON, I'M A SPARK
STUDENT FOR LANEY COLLEGE IN
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA. I'M HERE
TODAY TO SHARE MY TESTIMONY
ABOUT EBT THEFT, WHICH
UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE BEEN A
VICTIM THREE DIFFERENT TIMES.
HONESTLY, THIS IS A FAILURE OF
THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT
FAMILIES FROM EXPERIENCING
POVERTY AND ACCESSING PUBLIC
BENEFITS. WHAT'S COMPLICATED FOR
THIS HEARING IS THAT THE PRIMARY
FAULT IS THE GOVERNMENT, FROM
THE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE GOING TO
THE ATM AND NOT HAVING ANY MONEY
TO PAY BILLS, PUT GAS IN MY CAR
OR BUY MY KIDS SCHOOL CLOTHES. I
CAN ONLY IMAGINE THOSE THAT
SOLELY COUNT ON EBT AS A SOURCE
OF INCOME AND WHAT THEY GO
THROUGH WHEN THEFT WOULD HAPPEN.
I KNOW WHEN IT HAPPENED TO ME, I
FELT EMBARRASSED TO CALL MY BOSS
AND EXPLAIN TO HER THAT I
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MAKE IT IN
FOR WORK BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE
GAS MONEY TELLING MY LANDLORD
I'M GOING TO BE LATE ON RENT
AGAIN, OR HAVING TO EXPLAIN TO
MY KIDS WHY THEY DON'T HAVE NEW
SHOES OR CLOTHES FOR THE NEW
SCHOOL YEAR. IT ALSO DOESN'T
HELP THAT SOME OF THE WORKERS AT
THE COUNTY BUILDINGS DO NOT TAKE
THEIR JOB SERIOUSLY, BECAUSE THE
FIRST TIME MY MONEY WAS STOLEN,
I WENT AND DID EVERYTHING THAT I
WAS ASKED TO DO AND I DID NOT
GET. AND I DID NOT GET THE MONEY
REPLACED UNTIL MY MONEY WAS
STOLEN OFF MY CARD AGAIN TWO
MONTHS LATER, BECAUSE OF THE
CARELESS BEHAVIOR AND BAD
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THOSE THAT
WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND
COMING FROM A 15 PLUS YEAR
CUSTOMER SERVICE BACKGROUND,
THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. MORE
TRAINING NEEDS TO BE HELD. SINCE
WE ARE NOT WEALTHY, I ASSUME THE
GOVERNMENT FEELS IT'S OKAY THAT
OUR ACCOUNTS SHOULDN'T HAVE THE
SAME PROTECTION AS SOMEONE WITH
A BIGGER BANK ACCOUNT. CRIMINALS
ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF US AND
WE HAVE NO WAY TO BE MADE WHOLE.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A PERMANENT
SOLUTION THAT WILL PROVIDE FAIR
PROTECTION AND JUSTICE TO THE
PEOPLE USING EBT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. QUESTION OF
GILBERT AND RYAN. AND WHEN
INVESTIGATIONS HAPPEN AND KEVIN,
YOU PUT THIS CORRECT ME IF I'M
NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY
. INVESTIGATORS INVESTIGATE THE
RECIPIENT OR THE PERSON WHO
STOLE. SO I FROM FROM WHAT I WAS
TALKING ABOUT, MY RESPONSE IS
THE INVESTIGATORS ARE
INVESTIGATING THE CRIMES THAT
THEY'RE FINDING OUT ABOUT.
THEY'RE COLLABORATING WITH OTHER
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ABOUT,
PARTICULAR, TRANSACTIONS THAT
LOOK TO BE, PROBLEMATIC IN
REGARDS TO, LIKE, THIS, THIS
THERE'S JUST ONE TRANSACTION
AFTER ANOTHER, AFTER ANOTHER.
WHY WHY IS THERE SO MANY
TRANSACTIONS HAPPENING AT THIS
ONE ATM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS
THAT THEY CAN GO LOOK AT. THEN
THEY START TO DO STING
OPERATIONS OR STUFF LIKE THAT.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT,
I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS
REGULATION THAT DOES REQUIRE,
FRAUD INVESTIGATION TO LOOK
INTO, CLAIMS. IF AFTER A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF CLAIMS HAVE BEEN FILED
FOR STOLEN BENEFITS, I, I'M NOT.
OKAY. OKAY. YEAH SO THERE, THERE
DID USED TO BE A STANDING RULE
THAT IF YOU FILED A CERTAIN
NUMBER OF THEFT CLAIMS WITHIN A
CERTAIN TIME PERIOD, OR IF IT
WAS OVER $1,000, THAT IT WOULD
AUTOMATICALLY BE SENT FOR A
FRAUD INVESTIGATION, REFERRAL OF
THE CLIENT. HOWEVER, WE CHANGED
THAT. SO WE ISSUED IN NOVEMBER
OF 2023 CLARIFICATION REMOVING
THOSE AUTOMATIC REFERRALS
ELIGIBILITY WORKERS DO STILL
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, IF THEY
THINK SOMETHING IS WEIRD IN THE
WAY THAT THIS IS HAPPENING, THEY
THEY ALWAYS HAVE THAT RIGHT TO
MAKE A REFERRAL FOR A FRAUD
INVESTIGATION, BUT THERE'S NO
LONGER AN AUTOMATIC TRIGGERING
OF THAT. THAT WILL HAPPEN. ONE
OF THE MAIN COMMON CONCERNS OR
COMMON, THINGS THAT COME UP IS
WE CHANGE TOWARDS REALLY
POSITIVE, APPROACHES, BUT IT'S
NOT TRICKLING DOWN TO THE DAY TO
DAY PERSON WHO WORKS WITH THE
INDIVIDUAL. I MEAN, THAT'S AN
OVERARCHING THEME. WE'RE SEEING
WHAT ARE WE DOING, RIGHT? AND
HOW IN THIS SPACE, HOW CAN WE
GET THAT INFORMATION DOWN? YOU
KNOW, YOU HEARD A STORY
REGARDING THAT SPECIFIC COUNTY
WORKER, NOT CARING. AND IT LEFT
A REALLY BAD TASTE OF ALL
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND SO
FORTH. RIGHT. AND YOUR NOVEMBER
LETTER OF 2023, DO WE ARE WE
STILL SEEING, DIFFERENT COUNTIES
NOT REALLY SPREADING THAT WORD
DOWN TO THEIR CASEWORKERS? YOU
KNOW, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY IF
THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC COUNTY THAT
THAT, YOU KNOW, IS DOING THIS
BETTER OR WORSE. YOU KNOW, I
I'LL SAY, I KNOW THERE ARE
COUNTY WORKERS WHO ARE DOING THE
BEST THAT THEY CAN. THERE'S A
LOT THAT WE THROW AT THEM, AND
IT CAN BE HARD TO KEEP TRACK OF
ALL OF THIS STUFF. SO, YOU KNOW,
WE DO TRY IF WE HEAR THAT
SOMETHING ISN'T WORKING AS
EXPECTED, WE'LL ISSUE ADDITIONAL
LETTERS. WE'LL HAVE
CONVERSATIONS, YOU KNOW, WITH
LEADERSHIP. AND THEN WE
OBVIOUSLY RELY ON OUR FRIENDS
AND PARTNERS AT THE CALIFORNIA
WELFARE DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION TO
HELP SPREAD THE WORD. WHATEVER
CHANNELS THAT WE CAN FIND, TO
JUST MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE
AWARE OF THESE CHANGES WILL TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THEM. IF FOR SOME
REASON, WITH THE DIFFERENT PLANS
THAT WE HAVE AT THE TABLE TO GET
THIS MOVING BY SUMMER, WE DON'T
MAKE THE SEPTEMBER 30TH MARK. I
MEAN, MAYBE DEPARTMENT FINANCE,
LEO, THE ADDITIONAL COST, WHAT
WOULD HAPPEN? WILL THE STATE
THEN TAKE ON THE 100%
RESPONSIBILITY OF REPAYING? THAT
MIGHT BE ABOVE MY PAY GRADE TO
ANSWER, BUT YES, I BELIEVE THAT
IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. I MEAN,
THAT'S A HUGE. AND THEN IF WE
WOW, THAT'S A HUGE UPTAKE IN OUR
IN OUR FUNDS. RIGHT? I MEAN, I
THINK LAST SUMMER WHAT WAS IT,
10 MILLION A MONTH,
APPROXIMATELY 10 MILLION A MONTH
THAT WE'RE LOSING OUT ON, ON EBT
THEFT, 10 MILLION A MONTH. AND
WE'RE GETTING HELP FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW TO
PAY THAT. SO I'M I MEAN, IT'S
GOING TO LÀ IT'S GOING TO COME
OUT, IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE $100
BILLION DEFICIT. NOW SO YOU'RE
ALL MOTIVATED TO GET THIS DONE
AS MOTIVATION AS POSSIBLE. OKAY.
GREAT OKAY. YEAH. WE LOSE MORE
IN COWBOY. WE LOSE MUCH MORE IN
CALWORKS THAN IN CALFRESH FOR
EVERY EVERY ONE $1 EVERY $3 THAT
WE LOSE IN CAL WORKS, WE LOSE $1
IN CALFRESH. AND THEN WE ALSO
LOSE MONEY IN KP, WHICH IS THE
CALIFORNIA, AND ALSO FOR RCA.
THEY SKIM THERE TOO. OKAY THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ISSUES ONE
THROUGH FOUR. ONLY ISSUES ONE
THROUGH FOUR. ONLY I'M GONNA BE
VERY STRICT ON TIME, SO I
APOLOGIZE IF I CUT YOU MID
SENTENCE AND I MIGHT HAVE TO DO
45 SECONDS. NOW OTHERWISE YOU
WILL HAVE 45 SECONDS TO GIVE
YOUR COMMENT. 45 SECONDS A
MINUTE. IF YOU'RE UNDER 18.
ALARMS NOMBRE ES ELIZABETH SOMOS
LAS VOCES DE LOS PADRES Y LAS
FAMILIA NECESITAN FONDOS PARA EL
PORKA PROGRAMA DE CAL. WORKS
PUEDE A QUITAR NUESTRA FAMILIA
SI ELIZABETH. HI, MY NAME IS HI.
MY NAME IS EDER AND SOME FAMILY
NEEDS, A CALWORKS. THE KIDS NEED
CHILD CARE. PLEASE SUPPORT
FAMILIES. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
HOLA. MY NAME IS JACQUELINE Y YO
SOY LA MAMA DE SOS DOS PUEBLOS
NINOS SOY MIEMBRO DE PARENT
VOICE. ESTAMOS AQUI PARA APOYAR
EL PROGRAMA DE CARLOS QUÊ AYUDA
A LAS FAMILIAS EN MEJORAR SUS
VIDAS Y YO RECIBI CUIDADO DE
NINOS Y PUEDO SEGUIR PUDO
CONSEGUIR UN TRABAJO Y TAMBIÉN
PUEDE IR AL COLEGIO COMUNITARIO
A TOMAR CLASSES DE INGLÉS.
GRACIAS GRACIAS. HELLO. BUENAS.
BUENAS TARDES. ESTOY MUY
AGRADECIDA. I'M VERY GRATEFUL
FOR THIS PANEL BECAUSE I CAME
HERE ON OTHER OCCASIONS IN OTHER
YEARS, I WAS PART OF THE REFORM
OF THE CALWORKS, THE WHOLE
CALWORKS. AND IT WAS THIS IS THE
BEST TIME BECAUSE I REMEMBER ONE
TIME ONE OF THE LEGISLATORS
ASKED ME, WHERE IS MR. ALARCON?
MY NAME IS LUIS ALARCON. I'M
WITH PARENT VOICES, BY THE WAY.
BUT THEN IT WAS LIKE A BIG THING
, LIKE, YOU KNOW, MY HUSBAND WAS
DEPORTED. BUT IN ORDER TO RAISE
A HEALTHY FAMILY, I WAS ABLE TO
LOOK FOR MY RESOURCES AND THANK
GOD FOR MY PARENTS VOICES,
FAMILY THAT SUPPORT ME. AND I
CAN SPEAK UP NOW AND PLEASE,
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M VERY
GRATEFUL. THE QUESTIONS FROM THE
LADY THIS MORNING WAS VERY
SMART, VERY. IT IS A
CONVERSATION, BIG HEAD. I'M NOT
GOING TO LET HER KNOW YOU SAID
THAT, BUT IN THIS GREAT
CONVERSATION, WE'RE LEARNING.
AND THEN I'M REALLY. I'M REALLY
HAPPY. AND GRATEFUL FOR YOU, FOR
YOUR. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. HI. HI. GOOD EVENING
TO EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS ELIA
FERNANDEZ AND I'M WITH PARENT
VOICES AND I'M HERE BECAUSE TO
TELL MY DAUGHTER'S BECAUSE SHE
SHE'S UNCLE WORKS. BUT SOMETIMES
THEY NEVER ANSWER HER THE CALLS
WHEN SHE NEEDS TO MAKE A CALL.
THEY SAY, OH, PLEASE CALL THIS
NUMBER. NOBODY'S EVER ANSWERED
THE PHONE FOR HER. AND SHE HAS
FOUR KIDS RIGHT NOW SHE'S
STUDYING TO BE A DOCTOR. AND IN
A YEAR AND A HALF MORE, SHE'LL
BECOME A DOCTOR. AND SHE'S REAL
PROUD OF HER. BUT SHE NEEDS A
LOT OF HELP BECAUSE CALWORKS IS
NOT ENOUGH FOR HER. SHE'S PAYING
FOR HER COLLEGE AND EVERYTHING.
SO I JUST WANT TO SAY TO THANK
YOU FOR THE SUPPORT THAT THE
GOVERNOR WON'T CUT THE FUNDS FOR
OUR. THE KIDS NEED IT. THANK
YOU. YES HI. GOOD AFTERNOON.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND
HEARING FROM US, FIRST WE HAD
AFDC ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILIES
WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN. THEN IT
BECAME TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR
NEEDY FAMILIES. AND NOW IT'S
PERMANENT ELIMINATION OF
PROGRAMS, MY NAME IS MARIA
LUSTER. I'M FROM PARENT VOICES.
OBVIOUSLY I HAD A DREAM OF
BECOMING A PRACTICING ATTORNEY,
BUT THAT DREAM WAS PASSED, AND I
GOT DIVERTED BECAUSE I
EXPERIENCED, EMOTIONAL ABUSE AND
BECAME A SINGLE PARENT WITH TWO
CHILDREN AND WITH TWO CHILDREN
AT HOME. I CANNOT GO TO WORK,
I'M SO SORRY. EVERYONE JUST HAS
45 SECONDS. YOU GOT TO GET TO
YOUR POINT. OKAY, SO, AS A
SINGLE PARENT, I COULDN'T HAVE
MADE IT WITHOUT CALWORKS
ASSISTANCE. AND ALSO. SO FOR A
WHILE, WE WERE HOMELESS AND I
WAS ABLE TO SAVE MONEY AND MOVE
TO AN APARTMENT. BUT CALWORKS
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE WITH BUYING
FURNITURE AND ALL THAT STUFF.
SORRY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO
PLEASE DON'T CUT. THANK YOU. 45
SECONDS SOLO CINCO SEGUNDOS.
OKAY. HI, MY NAME IS. HI. MY
NAME IS EDUARDO, AND I SKIPPED
SCHOOL I, I SKIP, I SUPPORT MY
MOM AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS.
YEAH. SO, MY NAME IS MARIA
ANDRES. I AM THE MOTHER OF
EDUARDO. DUE TO, WE,
UNFORTUNATELY WERE HOMELESS AND
WE WERE ABLE TO GET STABILIZED
WITH THE STABILIZATION PROGRAM
WITH CALWORKS. NOW, I WENT TO
SCHOOL, I GRADUATED, I HAVE MY
OWN BUSINESS. I FINISHED MY
BACHELOR'S SO THAT IT'S A VERY
IMPORTANT, PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE
AND THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE
SUPPORTING OTHERS. THANK YOU. NO
MORE SCHOOL. OKAY THANK YOU.
YEAH. OKAY I NEED TO READ, FOR
ANOTHER PARENT. I'M SO SORRY. IF
THEY'RE NOT HERE. I'M SORRY. I
WON'T TAKE IT. OKAY. PERFECT.
THANK YOU. JUAN CAMILO SAIZ.
ALCALDE DE LA RESERVA DE LA
SEGURIDAD. ELIMINATE EL PROGRAMA
DE STABILIZATION. FAMILIAR
MUCHAS GRACIAS, EL SALVADOR. NO
COLOMBIANO O EL ASUNTO. SIMILAR.
HI. MARY IGNATIUS, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF PARENT VOICES
CALIFORNIA. ALL I REALLY WANT TO
SAY IS EARLIER IN THE
CONVERSATION WAS AROUND SOPHIE'S
CHOICE BETWEEN DECIDING WHICH
PROGRAM THAT THAT HELPS
VULNERABLE PEOPLE, WHICH
PROGRAMS SHOULD WE CUT? I WANT
TO COME TO A HEARING IN THE
STATE CAPITOL FOR FIVE HOURS
WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
$70 BILLION IN TAX BREAKS TO THE
RICHEST CORPORATIONS AND
INDIVIDUALS. THAT'S WHERE THE
SOPHIE'S CHOICE SHOULD BE. THEY
SHOULD BE ALL UP HERE TALKING
ABOUT WHAT THEY DO WITH THAT
MONEY THAT THEY DON'T NEED.
INSTEAD OF THESE POOR FAMILIES
GETTING ON FLIGHTS AT 3 A.M. AND
CHILDREN, IT'S RIDICULOUS. SO
THANK YOU FOR THIS INCREDIBLE
HEARING TODAY. AND WE SHOULD BE
TALKING ABOUT RAISING REVENUES
AND NOT CUTTING PROGRAMS FOR THE
MOST VULNERABLE. THANK YOU. YOU
GOT TO CONVINCE MY OTHER
COLLEAGUES OUT OVER THERE. MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, TIFFANY
WHITEN WITH SEIU CALIFORNIA
APPRECIATE THE ROBUST
CONVERSATION AROUND THE
REJECTION OF THE CUTS TO
CALWORKS AND IN PARTICULAR, THE
FAMILY STABILIZATION. I'LL JUST
ECHO THE COMMENTS BY OUR MEMBER,
BARRY, FROM 5 TO 1 IN SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY THAT SPOKE ON THE PANEL
AND ALSO SUPPORT THE EFFORTS FOR
THE CALWORKS PILOT AS WELL AS
THE EFFORTS TO BUILD UPON THAT
PROPOSAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS MARTHA GUERRERO,
REPRESENTING THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
WHERE WE HAVE IN THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION PROGRAM SERVING
117,000 FAMILIES IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, 270 217,000 CHILDREN,
THAT FUNDING GETS REINVESTED
BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY AS THEY
SPEND THEIR MONEY LOCALLY FOR
THE FAMILY STABILIZATION
PROGRAM. WE HAVE OVER 1000
FAMILIES A MONTH BEING SERVED
FOR 55. $8 MILLION IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY FOR THE FOR THE
EXPANDED SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT
PROGRAM. WE HAVE OVER 1000
FAMILIES IN THE YEAR THIS LAST
YEAR, AND FOR THE EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES INTENSIVE CASE
MANAGEMENT, WE HAVE OVER 1000
FAMILIES AS WELL. IN RESPONSE TO
THE QUESTION ABOUT THE
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT, THEY ARE
PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS, PUBLIC,
PRIVATE, NONPROFIT. THANK YOU
MARTHA, THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE
URGE YOU TO REJECT THESE CUTS.
ANDREW, YOU HAD FOUR MINUTES
ONLY ON ISSUE FOUR, WELL, WITH
MARY ON THE REVENUES AND THEN ON
ISSUE FOUR ET THEFT, WE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE TIMELINE.
THERE'S TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT
ARE NOT THE FAULT OF THE
DEPARTMENT. IT IS A NATIONAL
ISSUE. AND WE ENCOURAGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO LOOK NATIONALLY
FOR SOLUTIONS ON THIS. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, ANDREW KELLY BROOKS, ON
BEHALF OF THE URBAN COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA AND THE BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS OF RIVERSIDE, SANTA
CLARA, SANTA CRUZ, VENTURA, IN
OPPOSITION TO THE 400 MILLION IN
CALWORKS CUTS. WANT TO
UNDERSCORE THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT LAYING OFF 500 STAFF
STATEWIDE. WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT
WHETHER THE POSITION WILL BE IN
THE SAME PLACE FOR SUCCESS IN
THE FUTURE WITH AFTER THESE
CUTS, WE THINK CUMULATIVELY, THE
PROPOSALS WILL DESTABILIZE, BE
DESTABILIZING TO FAMILIES WHO
ARE AMONG THE POOREST AND MOST
VULNERABLE CALIFORNIANS WHO
OFTEN HAVE UNIQUE AND COMPLEX
NEEDS. AND WE URGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO FIND ALTERNATIVES
TO THESE DEEP CUTS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON, JEFF NEAL, ON BEHALF
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ALSO URGING
THE REJECTION OF THE CUTS TO
GIVE SAN DIEGO'S NUMBERS FOR THE
FAMILY STABILIZATION PROGRAM,
THERE ASSISTING APPROXIMATELY
3800 FAMILIES. EXCUSE ME,
CUSTOMERS JUST IN SAN DIEGO
COUNTY FOR EXPANDED SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT, 1130 CUSTOMERS THIS
YEAR. AGAIN REJECT THE CUTS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. ANDREA AMAVISCA. ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTER.
APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTIONS.
EARLIER ON THE PROPOSED CUTS TO
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES
DISCUSSED TODAY, WE STRONGLY
URGE THE LEGISLATURE TO REJECT
THE PROPOSED CUTS TO THESE
CRITICAL PROGRAMS. AS YOU HEARD
TODAY, THEY'VE PROVIDED LIFE
CHANGING SERVICES TO THOUSANDS
OF CALIFORNIA'S YOUTH, STUDENTS,
FAMILIES AND WORKERS ACROSS THE
STATE. CALIFORNIA HAS ALLOCATED
FULL FUNDING FOR THESE PROGRAMS
FOR SEVERAL YEARS, WHICH HAS
ALLOWED SERVICE PROVIDERS TO
BUILD TRUST AMONG THE IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE AND THE
INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO DO
SO. ELIMINATING THESE PROGRAMS
IS A STEP IN THE WRONG
DIRECTION, ESPECIALLY AS WE HEAR
THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND
CONGRESS THREATEN TO RAMP UP
DEPORTATIONS. WE SHOULD, AS A
STATE, RETAIN OUR COMMITMENT TO
ENSURING THAT CALIFORNIA IS A
STATE WHERE ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE
WELCOME AND HAVE ACCESS TO THE
RESOURCES THEY NEED TO THRIVE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS
DILLON ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTIES OF KERN, SOLANO,
SONOMA, TILLERY, HUMBOLDT AND I
JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR
THE CLOSE SCRUTINY OF THESE
ISSUES. ALSO IN OPPOSITION TO
THE PROPOSED CUTS OF CALWORKS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DAN
SEAMAN, ON BEHALF OF END POVERTY
IN CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION TO
CUTS IN THE CALWORKS PROGRAM.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DAN. HI,
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, BECKY SILVA
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
OF FOOD BANKS. AS YOU KNOW, WE
REPRESENT 41 FOOD BANKS, THE
MAJORITY OF WHICH RIGHT NOW ARE
CUTTING BACK ON SERVICES AMIDST
FUNDING CUTS AND INCREASED
DEMAND AT THEIR AT THEIR FOOD
BANK SITES. AND OF COURSE, MANY
FOOD BANKS SERVE CALWORKS
FAMILIES AS WELL. AND SO WE URGE
YOU TO REJECT THE DOUBLE CUT TO
THE SAFETY NET RESERVE AND CUTS
TO CALWORKS SERVICES. AND WE
ALSO URGE YOU TO BUILD ON TANF
PILOTS TO REIMAGINE CALWORKS AND
EMPOWER PARENTS TO
SELF-DETERMINE THEIR GOALS, AND
ALSO FOR PROVIDING PERMANENT,
ONGOING SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT EBT
THEFT AND MAKE VICTIMS WHOLE.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, JARED KAUL WITH
NOURISH CALIFORNIA. I JUST WANT
TO ECHO THE COMMENTS FROM OUR
PARTNERS AT THE FOOD BANK AND
ALSO ALIGN OUR COMMENTS ON THE
IMMIGRATION ISSUES WITH THOSE
FROM THE CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT
POLICY CENTER. THANK YOU.
REBECCA GONZALES WITH THE
WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY. I ALSO WANT TO ALIGN MY
COMMENTS WITH THE PREVIOUS
SPEAKERS. THANK YOU. THANKS,
REBECCA. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIRMAN JABBAR AND MEMBERS OF
THE SUBCOMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
EZRA PAMINTUAN ON BEHALF OF
ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD
BANK IN OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA. WE
WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ECHO THE
OPPOSITION TO THE DOUBLE CUT TO
THE SAFETY NET RESERVE AND CUTS
TO CALWORKS SERVICES. AND WE
WOULD LIKE TO RECORD OUR SUPPORT
FOR BUILDING ON TANF TO
REIMAGINE CALWORKS RAISING
GRANTS TO AT LEAST 50% OF THE
FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL FOR ALL
FAMILIES, ENSURING THE PASS
THROUGH OF ALL CHILD SUPPORT
PAYMENTS TO FORMER AND CURRENT
CALWORKS FAMILIES, AND FINALLY
PROVIDING PERMANENT, ONGOING
SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT EBT THEFT
AND MAKE VICTIMS WHOLE. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. KELLY FLORES WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
FOOD BANKS. I WANT A PLUS ONE.
WHAT IS YOUR POINTED OUT FROM
ALAMEDA COUNTY? AND JUST A HUGE
THANK YOU FOR YOUR EARLIER
COMMENTS ON REJECTING THE DOUBLE
CUTS TO THE SAFETY NET RESERVE
AND CALWORKS SERVICES. WE
COULDN'T SAY THAT BETTER THAN
YOU DID EARLIER TODAY. THANK YOU
. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
JENNA UYUNI AND I'M A STAFF
ATTORNEY AT GOODISON. I PROVIDE
A LEGAL SERVICES TO CSU'S,
SPECIFICALLY CAL STATE
NORTHRIDGE AND CAL STATE CHANNEL
ISLANDS, I HAD A STORY TO SHARE
WITH YOU ALL, BUT I WON'T WASTE
THE TIME HERE. AND YOU'LL HEAR A
LOT OF STORIES BEHIND ME. BUT I
DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE
MAINTAIN A WAITLIST FOR MOST OF
THE CAMPUSES THAT WE SERVE. THE
PROPOSED 75% CUT IN FUNDING WILL
MAKE THESE SERVICES GROSSLY
INADEQUATE TO THE DEMONSTRATED
NEED. A 75% CUT IN FUNDING MEANS
LESS THAN $79,000 FOR EACH OF
THE 23 CSU CAMPUSES, WHICH THAT
IS LESS THAN ONE LEGAL STAFF PER
CAMPUS. FAILURE TO FULLY RESTORE
AND PROTECT THIS PROGRAM MEANS
THAT THE OVER 10,000 STUDENTS
AND FAMILIES AT CSU CAMPUSES
THAT NEED AND RELY ON THESE
SERVICES WILL NOT GET THEM. SO
I'M RESPECTFULLY ASKING THAT
THEIR BUDGET CUTS NOT TAKE
EFFECT. THANK YOU. HI, I'M
MERCEDES SERRANO, MANAGING
ATTORNEY AT AND I OVERSEE THE
CSU PROGRAM THAT WE SERVE. WE
SERVE EIGHT CAMPUSES OUT OF THE
23 AND CUTTING THE BUDGET BY 75%
WOULD MEAN THAT WE WOULDN'T BE
ABLE TO PROVIDE SERVICES AS THE
STAFF ATTORNEY ALREADY
MENTIONED, WE ALREADY HAVE A
WAIT LIST OF PEOPLE THAT NEED TO
SEE US. SO CUTTING SERVICES
WOULD DEFINITELY MEAN THAT WE
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PROVIDE
SERVICES AND WOULD HAVE A LOT OF
CASES ALREADY ACTIVE WITHOUT
ANYBODY ELSE TO HELP THEM. SO
PLEASE RECONSIDER THE PROPOSED
BUDGET CUTS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
HELLO, MY NAME IS NORA MARTINEZ.
I COME FROM CSU LOS ANGELES, AND
I'M ONE OF THE ACTIVE CASES FOR
KHN AND I'M HERE IN REGARDS TO
THE PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS IN THE
FUNDS FOR IMMIGRATION SERVICES.
THE SERVICE AT MY CSU HAS BEEN
AN INSTRUMENTAL IN PROVIDING A
LIFELINE TO MANY UNDOCUMENTED
INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING MYSELF,
WHO HAVE BEEN IN NEED OF LEGAL
SUPPORT. CUTTING THE FUNDS FOR
THIS PROGRAM WOULD BE A
DEVASTATING BLOW. IT WOULD
DEPRIVE MANY INDIVIDUALS OF
OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD BETTER
LIVES FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR
FAMILIES. THE KHN SERVICE HAS
HELPED AN ENDLESS AMOUNT OF
PEOPLE. THEREFORE, I URGE THE
RELEVANT AUTHORITIES IN THIS
ROOM AND OUTSIDE OF THIS ROOM TO
RECONSIDER THE PROPOSED BUDGET
CUTS AND CONTINUE SUPPORTING
THESE IMMIGRATION SERVICES. IT
IS HIGH TIME WE RECOGNIZE THE
CRITICAL ROLE ALL THESE PROGRAMS
IN AND OUTSIDE OF THE CSU
CAMPUSES. HOW THEY HELP AND HOW
THEY IMPROVE THE LIVES OF MANY
VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS AND
SUPPORT IT ACCORDINGLY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS, TONY
TALK. I RECENTLY RECEIVED MY
BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIVERSITY OF LOS ANGELES.
MY MESSAGE TODAY IS TO URGE
THOSE WHO ARE EMPOWERED TO
RECONSIDER THE PROPOSED BUDGET
CUTS TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES
PROGRAM, ALONG WITH CUTS. AND
THESE LEGAL SERVICES HAVE MADE
HUGE IMPACT IN MY LIFE. BEING
RAISED IN THE WESTLAKE MACARTHUR
PARK AREA AND IMPACTED COMMUNITY
IN LOS ANGELES HAD TO OVERCOME
OBSTACLES WHICH INCLUDE
FINANCIAL BURDEN, LACK OF
RESOURCES AND LOSING MY DEAR
MOTHER TO CANCER. I'M NOT ONLY
AN ADVOCATE FOR MYSELF, BUT ALSO
FOR MY STUDENTS. FOR IN THE MANY
YOUTH IN MY COMMUNITY AND ALL
THE FAMILIES WHOM I SUPPORT, I
PLEASE URGE YOU TO OPPOSE ALL
THESE PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHARREN MEMBERS, JONATHAN MUNOZ,
ON BEHALF OF FIRST FIVE LOS
ANGELES, HERE IN OPPOSITION TO
THE CUTS TO CALWORKS AND THE
DEPLETION OF THE SAFETY NET
RESERVE, FIRST FIVE LÀ IS DEEPLY
CONCERNED WITH THE ELIMINATION
OF THE FAMILY STABILIZATION
PROGRAM, WHICH PROVIDES CRITICAL
SERVICES TO MANY OF THE FAMILIES
AND CHILDREN THAT CURRENTLY
SERVE. FIRST OF LÀ SERVES, WE
FEEL THESE CUTS, UNDO MUCH OF
THE PROGRESS THAT WE'VE MADE
OVER THE YEARS, AND, YOU KNOW,
THREATENS TO INCREASE CHILD
POVERTY. SO WE JUST CONTINUE TO
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE
CALWORKS PROGRAM AND THE BUDGET
NEGOTIATIONS. THANK YOU. THANKS
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARIA
MEJIA. I AM A FULL TIME STUDENT
AT CAL STATE LA, I AM HERE TO
DISCUSS HOW KANSEN LEGAL
SERVICES HAS SUPPORTED MY DACA
RENEWALS, WHICH PROVIDES ME WITH
A JOB THAT PROVIDES HEALTH CARE
PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT, AND PROVIDES A
SENSE OF STABILITY THAT I HAVE
NEVER BEEN ABLE TO EXPERIENCE.
AS AN UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT. I
FACE UNIQUE AND CUMULATIVE
CHALLENGES, AND THE SUPPORTS
THAT I HAVE, HAVE PROMOTE MY
PATH TOWARDS UPWARD MOBILITY
THROUGH LEGAL EDUCATION AND
ASSISTANCE, I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
TRAVEL ABROAD TO LEARN, GROW,
AND RESEARCH MY EXPERIENCES
WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT
THE LEGAL SERVICES NAVIGATING
HIGHER EDUCATION WITH HEAD OF
HOUSEHOLD RESPONSIBILITIES. I
WORRY I WILL NOT SUCCEED. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. EAGLES CAME OUT
TO SUPPORT? GOOD AFTERNOON
SENATORS. MY NAME IS JEFF OIDOR
ORTEGA. I AM A GRADUATE AND
SENIOR. THIS MAY, AND I, I COME
FROM CAL STATE LONG BEACH WITH A
BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN COMPUTER
SCIENCE AND CYBERSECURITY. I'M
HERE TO ASK FOR FURTHER SUPPORT
IN PROGRAMS SUCH AS KANSEN OR
FREE IMMIGRATION SERVICES ON
CAMPUS, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT
THOSE SERVICES HAVE HELPED ME
AND BENEFITED ME, WITH MY HIGHER
EDUCATION AND MY WORK
OPPORTUNITIES, WITH THE
ELIMINATION OF STRESS, WITH THE
COST OF BUYING OR RENEWING MY
DACA, I WAS ABLE TO FOCUS MY
ATTENTION TO FINDING EMPLOYMENT
IN EDUCATION, SUCH AS MENTORING
AND TUTORING STUDENTS IN
ENGINEERING, OR MENTORING
STUDENTS IN THE UNDOCUMENTED
STUDENT COMMUNITY. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
ELIZABETH DUNCAN AND I'M ON THE
LAM FROM THE CAL STATE DOMINGUEZ
HILLS. I'M HERE TODAY TO PUT A
FACE ON THE IMPACT ESTÁN IS
MAKING IN OUR COMMUNITY AND ITS
PEOPLE. CUT HASN'T PLAYED A
MAJOR ROLE IN MY IMMIGRATION
JOURNEY. THEIR SERVICES AIDED ME
THROUGH MY UNDERGRAD AND AFTER I
STARTED WITH APPLICATIONS AND
RENEWALS FOLLOWED BY MY ADVANCED
PAROLE, AND EVENTUALLY I
RECEIVED MY LEGAL PERMANENT
RESIDENCE. THANKS TO KANSEN, I'M
NOW WORKING FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC, SOCIAL SERVICES AND
BEING OF SERVICE TO MY
COMMUNITY. HOWEVER, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOT FORGET THIS
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AS
ACCESSIBLE IF NOT FOR THE
ASSISTANCE OF KANSEN. THIS IS
WHY I'M HERE TODAY TO ADVOCATE
AND ASK YOU ALL TO RECONSIDER
AND NOT ELIMINATE OR REDUCE THE
FUNDING FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY IMMIGRATION LEGAL
PROGRAM. THESE PROGRAMS CHANGE
PEOPLE'S LIVES AS IT DID IN
MINE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I
HOPE YOU GO BACK TO DPS AND TALK
TO YOUR PEERS ABOUT EVERYTHING
YOU HEARD TODAY ON CALWORKS. I
TOOK NOTES, OKAY. HELLO, MARIA
ROMO, I'M WITH THE CHILD CARE
RESOURCE CENTER. WE ARE THE
LARGEST, CHILD CARE AND FAMILY
SERVICES NONPROFIT IN NORTHERN
LA COUNTY. AND SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY. WE ARE ALSO PART OF THE
END CHILD POVERTY COALITION,
WE'RE HERE TO URGE YOU TO STOP
THE DOUBLE CUTS TO, THE PROGRAMS
THAT WE HEARD ABOUT TODAY AND TO
PLEASE PROTECT THE SERVICES FOR
CALWORKS FAMILIES, AND ALL OF
YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND YOUR
STATE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HI.
LAUREN FLORES, SUPERVISING
ATTORNEY WITH GARRISON'S COLLEGE
LEGAL SERVICES TEAM, UNDER OUR
COLLEGE LEGAL SERVICES TEAM
PROJECT, WE ARE HELPING SOME OF
THE STATE'S BEST AND BRIGHTEST
GAIN LEGAL WORK AUTHORIZATION.
ULTIMATELY STRENGTHENING OUR
STATE'S ECONOMY. THROUGH THIS
PROJECT, I'VE PERSONALLY HELPED
A STUDENT WHO IS NOW ATTENDING
UCLA MEDICAL SCHOOL, A CSU
POLICE OFFICER'S SPOUSE, AND
STUDENTS IN FIELDS SUCH AS
SOCIAL WORK AND COUNSELING
OBTAIN PERMANENT RESIDENCY. I
URGE YOU TO RECONSIDER OUR
PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS TO CSU'S
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I'M LAURA PEARLSTEIN,
ATTORNEY WITH IMMIGRANT LEGAL
DEFENSE, HERE IN OPPOSITION TO
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED CUTS TO
THE CSU LEGAL SERVICES. I WANTED
TO UNDERSCORE THE POINT THAT IF
THESE SERVICES ARE CUT, THERE
WILL NOT BE OTHER OPTIONS FOR
PEOPLE WHO NEED THEM. ONE OF THE
FIRST CLIENTS THAT I HELPED WHEN
WE LAUNCHED THIS PROGRAM, A MOM
AND DAUGHTER FROM EL SALVADOR,
THE DAUGHTER WAS THE FIRST IN
THE FAMILY TO GO TO MIDDLE
SCHOOL TO HIGH SCHOOL, AND WAS A
STUDENT AT SF STATE WHO GREATLY
DEPENDED ON HER MOTHER'S
SUPPORT, EMOTIONAL MATERIAL, ALL
THE WAYS THAT MOM SUPPORT OUR
KIDS. HER MOM WAS FACING
DEPORTATION AND SHE WENT TO TEN
ATTORNEYS, PRIVATE AND NONPROFIT
IN THE BAY AREA AND WAS TURNED
DOWN BY ALL OF THEM, SHE DIDN'T
GET HELP UNTIL SHE FOUND US. SO
THESE SERVICES ARE REALLY VITAL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. YOU HIT ME RIGHT IN THE
HEART TALKING ABOUT MY
SALVADORIAN COMMUNITY. MESH WITH
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE. I
WANTED TO COMMENT ON A POINT
THAT WAS MADE EARLIER TODAY IN
SUPPORT OR JUSTIFYING THE CUTS
TO THE CSU IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICES PROJECT, AND THAT POINT
WAS THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME
TO FIND OTHER LEGAL SERVICES
ONCE THIS PROJECT WINDS DOWN.
DUE TO THE CUTS. BUT THE REALITY
IS, IS THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER
PLACES TO TURN TO. ALL THE OTHER
EXISTING NONPROFITS IN THE
COMMUNITY ARE OVERWHELMED AS IT
IS. I'VE BEEN WORKING IN THAT
COMMUNITY FOR OVER TEN YEARS
BEFORE JOINING, IMMIGRANT LEGAL
DEFENSE, SERVING THE CSU
PROJECT. AND THIS IS REALLY THE
LAST PLACE THAT PEOPLE CAN GO TO
, I ALSO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT
IN THIS PROJECT, WE CATCH PEOPLE
AT A CRITICAL AGE. THERE ARE
IMMIGRATION BENEFITS THAT YOUNG
PEOPLE AND YOUTH CAN AGE OUT OF
AT 21, AND CATCHING THEM AT THE
COLLEGE AGE IS THE PERFECT TIME
TO GET LEGAL SERVICES. THANK YOU
. HI, MY NAME IS NIXIE CRUZ,
SENIOR LEGAL ASSISTANT FROM
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE IN
OPPOSITION TO BUDGET CUTS FOR
IMMIGRATION, LEGAL SERVICES.
THERE IS NO DENYING THAT OUR
IMMIGRATION SYSTEM IS BROKEN.
THIS FUNDING ALONE WON'T FIX IT,
BUT IT HELPS VULNERABLE
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES ACCESS
RELIABLE, LEGAL HELP TO NAVIGATE
THAT BROKEN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM.
HAVING REPRESENTATION THROUGH AN
IMMIGRATION PROCESS IS NOT
REQUIRED, BUT MAKES A WORLD OF A
DIFFERENCE. IF YOU'RE AN
IMMIGRANT AND CAN'T AFFORD TO
PAY A PRIVATE ATTORNEY, YOU HAVE
TO DO YOUR BEST, ESSENTIALLY
BEING SET UP TO FAIL. WHEN
SERVICES ARE COMING FROM TRUSTED
INSTITUTIONS LIKE SCHOOLS, IT
MAKES IT THAT MUCH EASIER TO
REACH VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
LIKE STUDENTS WHO COULD
POTENTIALLY AGE OUT OF
IMMIGRATION BENEFITS. I HEARD
YOU SAY THAT IF CUTTING Ã
FUNDING GETS CUT, SOME WILL
SIMPLY HAVE TO HIRE ATTORNEYS OR
SEEK HELP ELSEWHERE. AND I JUST
WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
THAT'S EASIER SAID THAN DONE.
CUTTING FUNDING FROM IMMIGRATION
WORK WILL DEFINITELY MAKE IT
HARDER FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
HERE TODAY AND GET HELP
ELSEWHERE. THANK YOU, SENATOR,
I'M TIMING MYSELF RIGHT NOW.
JUST TO MAKE SURE. MY NAME IS
CHRISTINA LEE. I'M A MANAGING
ATTORNEY AT IMMIGRANT LEGAL
DEFENSE. I'VE BEEN PRACTICING
IMMIGRATION LAW FOR 20 YEARS. MY
TIME ON THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN
EXTREMELY, EYE OPENING. AND I
JUST WANT TO SORT OF GIVE A PLAY
BY PLAY OF HOW A CONSULTATION
CAN WORK OUT. WHERE I MEET WITH
A STUDENT, I ASK THEM WHAT
SCHOOL THEY'RE AT, WHAT ARE THEY
STUDYING? SOMETIMES IT'S BIO
ENGINEERING AND I'M IMPRESSED
BECAUSE I FAILED CHEMISTRY AND I
WAS BORN HERE AND I'M A STUDENT
TO MEET THESE KIDS WHO HAVE
OVERCOME SO MUCH, TO GO THROUGH
SO MUCH AND TO STUDY. AND A LOT
OF TIMES, LIKE, WHAT ARE YOU
GOING TO DO WITH YOUR DEGREE?
AND MANY TIMES THEY SAY, I DON'T
KNOW. I'M THINKING ABOUT JUST
GIVING UP AND NOT PURSUING MY
MASTER'S. AND THEN I HAVE TO
TELL THEM AND MANY OF THE WORKS
THAT WE DO AS ATTORNEYS IS THAT
WE ARE CHEERLEADERS, AND WE HAVE
TO GIVE THEM HOPE. AND WE THEN
GO THROUGH THEIR PROCESS TO FIND
PATHWAYS FOR THEM TO FIND A
SOLUTION. AND FOR CALIFORNIA,
THESE STUDENTS WILL GO INTO THE
WORKFORCE AND STABILIZE THEIR
LIVES IN OUR COMMUNITY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. WATCH DIDN'T
WORK. JEAN YAMASAKI, IMMIGRANT
LEGAL DEFENSE, ONE OF OUR
CLIENTS IS STUDENT AT CSU
FRESNO. WAS NOT ABLE TO COME TO
SACRAMENTO TODAY, BUT SHE WANTED
HER STORY TO BE TOLD. SINCE
GETTING PERMISSION TO LEGALLY
WORK THROUGH THIS PROGRAM, SHE'S
BEEN ABLE TO WORK TO HELP HER
MOTHER, WHO IS LEGALLY BLIND.
SHE'S BEEN ABLE TO INTERN IN THE
CENTRAL VALLEY WITH THE AMERICAN
HEART ASSOCIATION, GIVING
EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATIONS TO
COMMUNITY MEMBERS ABOUT HIGH
BLOOD PRESSURE. SHE'S MAJORING
IN PUBLIC HEALTH. SHE'LL BE
GRADUATING THIS SUMMER WITH
LEGAL STATUS MADE POSSIBLE BY
THIS PROGRAM. THIS STUDENT WILL
BE ABLE TO WORK IN HER CHOSEN
FIELD AND GIVE BACK TO THE STATE
THAT HAS PROVIDED SO MUCH TO
HER. SO DOES CALIFORNIA REALLY
WANT THESE CSU STUDENTS TO
GRADUATE WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO
WORK IN THEIR CHOSEN FIELD? WHAT
BECOMES OF CALIFORNIA'S
INVESTMENT IN THE EDUCATION OF
THESE STUDENTS? IF THESE
STUDENTS ARE LEFT WITHOUT ACCESS
TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO HELP
THEM GAIN LEGAL STATUS? THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME
IS SIOBHAN WALDRON. I'M ALSO AN
ATTORNEY AT IMMIGRANT LEGAL
DEFENSE, AND I WANT TO SPEAK IN
VEHEMENT OPPOSITION TO THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS
TO THE IMMIGRANT IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM AND ASK
THAT IT BE FULLY FUNDED. PEOPLE
HAVE MENTIONED HOW HARD IT IS,
EVEN IN THE BAY AREA AND OTHER
URBAN CENTERS, TO FIND FREE
ATTORNEYS OR AFFORDABLE
ATTORNEYS. BUT I DO ALSO WANT TO
UNDERSCORE THAT THE CSUS, AS YOU
KNOW, ARE LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE
STATE AND WE PROVIDE SERVICES IN
TRADITIONALLY UNDERSERVED. AND
SOMETIMES THERE'S JUST TRULY,
ABSOLUTELY NO SERVICES AVAILABLE
IN THE COMMUNITIES. BUT VIA THE
UNIVERSITIES, THEY ARE, FOR THE
FIRST TIME ABLE TO ACCESS
QUALITY LEGAL SERVICES. SO
PLEASE KEEP THE PROGRAM FULLY
FUNDED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MIA
ROMERO. I'M A MANAGING ATTORNEY
AT IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE, AND
I'M HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED CUTS TO THE
CSU IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES
PROJECT, I CURRENTLY REPRESENT
HUNDREDS OF DACA RECIPIENTS WHO
ARE LOOKING TO RENEW THEIR
APPLICATIONS. AND FOR MANY OF
THEM, WHEN I TALK TO THEM, THEY
TELL ME THAT I'M THE VERY FIRST
ATTORNEY THAT THEY HAVE EVER
SPOKEN TO. THEY ARE CONFUSED AS
TO WHY I'M EVEN ASKING THEM SO
MANY QUESTIONS. EVERYWHERE ELSE
THEY GO JUST DOES THEIR FORMS,
AND SOME OF THEM ARE EVEN
ANNOYED. BUT THIS BECOMES THE
VERY FIRST TIME THEY ACTUALLY
SPEAK TO SOMEBODY, AND CUTTING
THESE PROGRAMS IS GOING TO SEND
THEM BACK TO, NOT OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS WHERE THEY CAN'T
GO, BUT TO NOTARIOS, WHICH ARE
TRADITIONALLY PLACES WHERE
FOLKS, YOU KNOW, WIND UP GETTING
DEFRAUDED, WIND UP GETTING PUT
IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS AS A
RESULT OF SOMEONE JUST, THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
JESSICA EMIGDIO. I AM WITH
COMMUNITY JUSTICE ALLIANCE HERE
IN SUPPORT FOR THE PROGRAM.
CHIRP THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN A
TREMENDOUS SUPPORT FOR LEGAL AND
SOCIAL SERVICES FOR MANY YOUTH.
I WORK DIRECTLY WITH A LOT OF
UNACCOMPANIED, YOUTH AND I HAVE
SEEN FIRSTHAND THE TREMENDOUS
IMPACT THAT IT MAKES TO NOT HAVE
TO WORRY ABOUT FINDING LEGAL
SUPPORT OR NAVIGATING THE
COMPLEX SYSTEMS, AND THIS HAS
ALLOWED FOR MANY OF THEM TO
FLOURISH AND GROW TO A POINT
WHERE THEY'RE ABLE TO STAND HERE
TODAY AND SPEAK TO YOU, AND
YOU'LL HEAR FROM TWO OF THOSE
YOUTH RIGHT NOW, IT REALLY MAKES
AN IMPACT. SO I ASK THAT YOU
PLEASE SUPPORT PROGRAMS LIKE
CHIRP. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ESTELI
AND SAU. CAÑADA NOW. BUENAS
TARDES. ME NOMBRE. ESTELI. SOY
UNA JOVEN ACOMPANADA DE ENERO DE
ESTE ANO A LA DIFICULTAD ME VINE
DE HONDURAS. PORQUE HAY MUCHO
VIOLENCIA Y DE SER VICTIMAS DE
UNA COSA Ã ES DE LA SITUACION
MAS QUÊ EN LA ESCUELA. GRACIAS
AL PROGRAMA PUEDE SER RECIBIR
APOYO LEGAL DE INMIGRACIÓN IN
VIDAK NÓ EN EL PROGRAMA, PORQUE
A SER UNA MEJOR PERSONA Y ME
GUSTARIA QUÊ JOVENES COMO YO
ESTE EL APOYO GRACIAS EN LA
ESCUELA SI ALDEN MAS A LA HIGH
SCHOOL. OKAY, LET'S GO, YOUNG.
HOLA. BUENAS TARDES. MY NAME IS
JOSE MARIN. HOY. NO, COMPANERO.
AND THEN PORTANTINO'S. YO, ESTÁN
ARAMBULA DÍAS ME PORQUE NO CREO
DÍAS CUANDO ESTE PAIS DANNY
AMIGO SOBRE TODO ENCONTRAR EL
PROGRAMA. ME CON CON CON UN
MÉDICA. UNA O GRATIS CON LA
ESCUELA E ESPERO C¯ NUESTRA VOZ
ESCUCHADO APOYAN EL PROGRAMA
CHIRLA, WHICH IS MY MUCHAS. GOOD
EVENING, ANA PALOMARES. I'M WITH
COMMUNITY JUSTICE ALLIANCE. I AM
JUST HERE TO ASK YOU. PLEASE
PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T FORGET
THOSE YOUTH BECAUSE THEY'RE HERE
ALONE, FIGHTING A FIGHT ALL BY
THEMSELVES. SO PLEASE KEEP THEM
IN MIND. YES. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. TANIA LEONIDAS
GARCIA. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE, AND I
JUST WANT TO URGE YOU TO OPPOSE
THE CUTS TO THE CSU LEGAL
SERVICES PROGRAM, THIS PROGRAM
ALLOWS STUDENTS AND THEIR
FAMILIES TO CONTINUE THEIR
EDUCATION AND TO FULLY UTILIZE
THE EDUCATION. THE EDUCATION
THAT THEY GET AT THE CSU'S, AND
AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE MENTIONED,
THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT
IN AREAS WITH NO LEGAL RESOURCES
WHERE FAMILIES ARE, VULNERABLE
TO GETTING WRONGLY LEGAL ADVICE
BY NON-LAWYERS AND THEN BE PUT
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. HI THERE. MY
NAME IS GRISELDA GONZALEZ. I AM
AN IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY AT ILD,
SO COPY AND PASTE WITH MY
COLLEAGUE, SAID I. IMPORTANTLY,
I'M A FORMER UNDOCUMENTED
STUDENT AND THANKS TO THE SAME
SERVICES MY PARENTS AND I WERE
ABLE TO OBTAIN LEGAL STATUS
AFTER BEING IN THIS IN THIS
COUNTRY FOR OVER 20 YEARS. IT
ALSO ALLOWED ME TO JOIN THE
MILITARY, FINISH COLLEGE, AND
FINALLY BECOME AN ATTORNEY. AND
I HOPE CALIFORNIA CONTINUES TO
INVEST IN STUDENTS LIKE MYSELF.
THANK YOU. WHAT BRANCH DID YOU
JOIN? WHAT IT'S OKAY. I'M ARMY.
I MEAN, I MEAN, YOU CAME HERE
UNDOCUMENTED AND THEN JOINED AN
ORGANIZATION TO DEFEND ANOTHER
COUNTRY. THAT'S HUGE. I WAS ABLE
TO CARRY THE AIR FORCE LIKE.
THAT'S AMAZING. YOU WANT TO SAY
THAT WITH PRIDE? GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS VICTORIA TINOCO, ALSO
WITH IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE, AS
YOU HEARD. AND WILL CONTINUE
HERE. THE IMMIGRATION PROGRAM IS
ONE THAT IS VITAL AND
IRREPLACEABLE TO THE STUDENTS
AND THEIR FAMILIES. I URGE YOU
TO OPPOSE THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET,
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET
CUTS TO THE PROGRAM. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. I THOUGHT HE WAS NAVY
. HI. MY NAME IS MAKAYLA RABAGO
AND I AM A LAW STUDENT AT THE
LOYOLA IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CLINIC
AT LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, HERE TO
SPEAK ON THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED
CUTS TO THE IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICES. THE CLINIC IS A
RECIPIENT OF THE ONE CALIFORNIA
STATE FUNDING. THE CLINIC HAS
COMPLETED A THOUSAND PLUS
COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS OVER THE
COURSE OF TEN YEARS, AND
PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO MANY
OF LOS ANGELES MOST VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES WHO ARE IN NEED OF
PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION. AND
THIS GOVERNMENT PROPOSED CUT
WILL HINDER OUR ABILITY TO
PROVIDE THESE VITAL RESOURCES.
BECAUSE OF THE CLINIC, WE HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE HANDS ON
TRAINING TO HUNDREDS OF LAW
STUDENTS, MANY OF WHOM HAVE
BECOME IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS
. TODAY, OUR CLINIC URGES YOU TO
REJECT GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED CUTS
TO IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES,
INCLUDING CUTS THAT ARE MEANT TO
SERVE THE 75,000 TPS RECIPIENTS
IN CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. IS THE
AIR FORCE VETERAN STILL HERE?
WELL, WE JUST FOUND OUT THE
GENERAL WAS IN THE AIR FORCE.
OKAY. YEAH JUST FIND OUT I KNEW.
OH, I THOUGHT HE WAS NAVY, SO
I'LL TALK TO HIM MORE ABOUT THAT
LATER. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME
IS ABRAHAM BADOY. I'M THE POLICY
SPECIALIST WITH THE IMMIGRANT
LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER. THE IRC
IS A CLEARINGHOUSE ON
IMMIGRATION LAW AND POLICY. AND
I'M HERE TO REJECT THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO THE
APPROXIMATE $33 MILLION CUT TO
IMMIGRATION SERVICES. AS EXPERTS
WHO ARE TASKED BY THE STATE TO
PROVIDE TRAINING AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE TO ARM THE LEGAL
SERVICES PROVIDERS WITH TOOLS TO
NAVIGATE THE COMPLEXITIES OF
IMMIGRATION LAW, THE IRC
UNDERSTANDS FIRSTHAND HOW STATE
FUNDED IMMIGRATION SERVICES ARE
CRUCIAL TO THE LIVES OF
THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS, WORKERS,
FAMILIES, AND OTHER COMMUNITY
MEMBERS IN CALIFORNIA. THE
PROPOSED CUTS TO IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICES WILL HAVE DIRE
CONSEQUENCES ON ALREADY
OVERBURDENED AND THINNING LEGAL
CAPACITY IN CALIFORNIA. THESE
CUTS DIRECTLY HURT CALIFORNIA'S
WORKERS WORKERS AT LÀ
ORGANIZATIONS, AS THEY WILL HAVE
TO SCALE BACK AND LET GO OF KEY
PLAYERS. DUE TO STAFF DUE TO
LACK OF FUNDS. CALIFORNIA SHOULD
CENTER ITS CORE VALUES OF
INVESTING IN IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES, UPLIFTING IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS, AND PROMOTING FAMILY
UNITY. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. JULIE MITCHELL, LEGAL
DIRECTOR AT CARECEN IN LOS
ANGELES. WE RECEIVE CSU LEGAL
SERVICES FUNDING AS WELL AS TPS
FUNDING. WE COVER EIGHT CSU
CAMPUSES AND SERVE THE LARGEST
NUMBER OF TPS HOLDERS IN THE
STATE. WE ALSO RECEIVE ESF
FUNDING, IMMIGRATION SERVICES
FUNDING. SO I SPECIFICALLY
WANTED TO ADDRESS THE PANEL'S
COMMENTS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO USE
THIS FUNDING AS AN ALTERNATIVE
FUNDING SOURCE. SOURCE TO COVER
THE SERVICES THAT WILL BE LOST
THROUGH THE ELIMINATION OF THE
TPS SERVICES AND CSU CUTS. AND I
WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT WE WILL
NOT BE ABLE TO USE ESF FUNDING
TO COVER THESE SERVICES. THAT
FUNDING IS ALREADY AT AND PAST
CAPACITY AND WE WILL NOT BE ABLE
TO ABSORB THESE PROGRAMS INTO
THAT FUNDING SOURCE. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME. BUENOS TARDES. MY
NAME IS EVELYN HERNANDEZ. MY
NAME IS EVELYN HERNANDEZ.
TRABAJO COMO ORGANIZADORA IN
CENTRAL AMERICA RESOURCE CENTER
IN LOS ANGELES IS BEING CRUCIAL.
QUÊ EL ESTADO DE CALIFORNIA
PROVEA I SUPPORT A LOS
BENEFICIARIOS DE TPS Y SUS
PROGRAMAS ECONOMICOS LOS
BENEFICIOS DE TPS NO SIEMPRE
ESTÁN CON SUS TRABAJOS Y NO
SIEMPRE TIENEN LOS RECURSOS PARA
CUBRIR ESOS CASOS GRACIAS,
GRACIAS. BUENAS TARDES. MY NAME
IS SANTO GONZALEZ SALVADORENO, A
BENEFICIARY OF TPS. TRABAJADORES
DE LA CONSTRUCCION PADRE DE
FAMILIA Y CABEZA DE FAMILIA ES
DE SU IMPORTANCIA QUÊ, SEGUN EL
PROGRAMA DE GENTE JA C¯ EN ME
CASO A MIS INGRESOS DEPENDE DE
LO C¯ ES EL CLIMA Y PUES ES DE
SOME IMPORTANCIA PARA A
CONTRIBUIR A ME FAMILIA. MUCHAS
GRACIAS. GRACIAS BUENOS TARDES.
ME NOMBRE ES LORENA CEPEDA,
ORIGINARIA DEL SALVADOR Y
BENEFICIARY DEL TPS Y TAMBIÉN
BENEFICIARY DE LOS SERVICIOS QUÊ
CARECEN OFRECE A LA COMUNIDAD DE
PESTANA. Y POR ESO ESTOY AQUI
PARA PEDIR C¯ SE INCLUIDO EN EL
IN EN EL EL PUEDA SEGUIR
RECIBIENDO RECURSOS PARA PODER
SEGUIR AYUDANDO A LA COMUNIDAD Y
SOMOS UNA COMUNIDAD DE GRANDE.
YO SOY MADRE DE LOS HIJOS EN EL
COLEGIO Y COMO DIJO ME
COMPANERO. NOSOTROS LOS
CAMPESINOS! NO SIEMPRE TENEMOS
TRABAJO Y MUCHAS VECES NUESTRO
TRABAJO. NO ES MUY BUEN
REMUNERATIVE. VERDAD ENTONCES,
PUES NECESITAMOS DE SUS RECURSOS
C¯ KHN NOS OFRECE. GRACIAS.
THANK YOU. MY UNCLE MATEO IS TPS
AND WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING RIGHT
NOW FOR SOME SERVICES. IT'S I
KNOW THIS ORGANIZATION NAMED
CARAS AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'VE
HEARD OF THEM. THEY'RE AMAZING.
AND THERE'S ACTUALLY ANOTHER ONE
IN SAN FRANCISCO IN CASES IN
THAT AREA. NO, HE'S IN HE'S IN
LA. SO I LIKE THESE I UNDERSTAND
THESE ISSUES. YEAH. GO AHEAD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS CHRISTOPHER SANCHEZ WITH
THE MESA VERDE GROUP HERE ON
BEHALF OF OUR FRIENDS AT CHIRLA,
THE COALITION FOR HUMANE
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS TO REJECT THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED CUTS TO
IMMIGRATION SERVICES. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M KAREN
CROSSWHITE, AN ATTORNEY AT
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE. I ECHO
THE COLLEAGUES OF MY THE
COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES, AND I
JUST TO MAKE LIKE TO MAKE TWO
QUICK POINTS, ONE IS THAT CSAS
ARE, PROVIDE STATEWIDE ACCESS TO
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES, BOTH
IN UNDERSERVED RURAL AREAS AS
WELL AS URBAN AREAS WHICH ARE
OVERBURDENED NOT ONLY AND NOT
ONLY STUDENTS ARE ABLE TO ACCESS
THOSE, BUT CRITICALLY, THEIR
FAMILIES TO STABILIZE, WHICH IS
IMPORTANT TO STABILIZE THEIR
COMMUNITIES. ALSO, I WANT TO
POINT OUT THAT WE'RE AT A
CRITICAL MOMENT WHERE
ANTI-IMMIGRANT SENTIMENT IN
OTHER STATES IS WIDESPREAD, WITH
STATE GOVERNMENT SUPPORT, AND I
HOPE THAT CALIFORNIA WILL
CONTINUE TO LEAD THE NATION IN
PROVIDING SUPPORT TO ITS
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU
. HI, MY NAME IS ELENI. I'M AT
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS TODAY. I'M
HERE OBVIOUSLY TO OPPOSE ALL OF
THE IMMIGRATION BUDGET CUTS, BUT
SPECIFICALLY TO TALK ABOUT THE
CSU PROJECT, A PROJECT THAT
WE'VE HAD THE HONOR OF LAUNCHING
, TO. I'M GOING TO TRY AND MAKE
TWO QUICK POINTS. ONE, AS A
COALITION, WE HAVE CLOSE TO 5500
ACTIVE OPEN CASES UNDER THIS
PROJECT RIGHT NOW. IF THIS
PROJECT IS IF THE BUDGET IS CUT
BY 75, THAT NOT ONLY MEANS WE
ACCEPT WE CAN'T ACCEPT NEW
CASES, WE ALSO HAVE TO WITHDRAW
FROM THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE
CASES. THOSE CASES ARE GOING TO
BE PENDING BETWEEN TWO AND 25
YEARS. SO IT WILL HAVE AN
IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON THAT. ALSO,
I JUST WANT TO URGE YOU TO KEEP
IN MIND THAT WE'RE REACHING
COMMUNITIES FOR THE FIRST TIME,
THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO
SERVE THROUGH ANY OF THE OTHER
PROJECTS OR INITIATIVES THAT
WE'VE STARTED IN CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS SENATOR CRUZ, AND I'M A
SENIOR LEGAL ASSISTANT WITH THE
IMMIGRANTS LEGAL DEFENSE. AND
I'M HERE TO, TO OPPOSE THE
BUDGET CUTS TO THE CSU IMMIGRANT
LEGAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT. IN
MY PREVIOUS ROLE, FROM 2012 TO
2018, I WAS A COLLEGE ADVISOR
WITH SEVERAL NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS, AND I HAD THE
FORTUNE OF WORKING WITH A LOT OF
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS. AND AS
SUCH, I HAD THE MISFORTUNE OF
HAVING THOSE THOSE DIFFICULT
CONVERSATIONS TO HELP THEM FIND
LEGAL RESOURCES. UNFORTUNATELY,
IT WAS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED,
ALTHOUGH WE DID FIND RESOURCES
THEY COULDN'T TAKE THEM BECAUSE
OF A LACK OF FUNDING, FROM 2019
TO 2021, I WAS ABLE TO BASICALLY
DIRECT THEM TO THOSE SERVICES
PROVIDED AT THEIR OWN CAMPUSES.
NOW, AS A SENIOR LEGAL
ASSISTANCE WITH THE IMMIGRANTS
LEGAL DEFENSE, I'M FORTUNATE TO
BE ABLE TO WORK WITH A LOT OF
THOSE STUDENTS FROM DIFFERENT
CAMPUSES. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS YOSHIRA MENDEZ AND I
WORK AT IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE
AS WELL, AND I'M JUST HERE TO
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THE TO
END TO. SORRY. OKAY I'M HERE TO
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO THE CSU
IMMIGRANT LEGAL SERVICES
PROGRAM. IT IS FUNDAMENTAL FOR
THE STUDENTS, AND WE JUST WANT
TO HELP THEM. AND THAT'S IT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HI, I'M
BARBARA PINTO. I'M CO-EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR AT IMMIGRANT LEGAL
DEFENSE, AND I'M HERE IN SUPPORT
OF THE CSU IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICES PROJECT. THIS IS A VERY
SUCCESSFUL PROJECT IN REACHING
INDIVIDUALS IN LEGAL, LEGAL
DESERTS DUE TO THE GEOGRAPHICAL
REACH OF ALL THE CSU CAMPUSES,
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CLIENTS
WE SPEAK TO ARE TELLING US THAT
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT AN
ATTORNEY IS DOING A FULL INTAKE
AND SCREENING FOR THEIR SO THAT
THEY KNOW WHAT OPTIONS THEY HAVE
HERE IN THIS COUNTRY, AND I
BELIEVE THAT I, I'M A PROUD CSU
ALUM. AND WHEN I WAS AT SAN
FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY, I
WAS ALSO UNDOCUMENTED AND HAD
LIVED UNDOCUMENTED FOR OVER 20
YEARS WITH MY PARENTS. AND WE
DID NOT SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY.
AND WHEN I WAS THERE AT SF
STATE, WE BECAME ELIGIBLE TO
APPLY FOR A GREEN CARDS, BUT
COULD NOT FIND AN ATTORNEY TO
REPRESENT US AND WE COULD NOT
AFFORD A PRIVATE ATTORNEY, SO I
DON'T WANT THESE STUDENTS TO GO
THROUGH WHAT WE HAD TO GO
THROUGH, AND THAT DESPERATION.
SO PLEASE SUPPORT THE CSU
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES
PROGRAM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, THANK YOU FOR I THINK MOST
OF YOU, IF NOT ALL OF YOU, ALSO
ATTENDED THE ASSEMBLY BUDGET
HEARING ON THIS TOPIC. AT LEAST
THIS DIDN'T GO TILL 9 P.M. YOU
DIDN'T HAVE TO WAIT TILL THAT
LONG ON THAT ISSUE, BUT I REALLY
WANT TO THANK YOU ALL COMING SO
FAR TO SHARE ABOUT YOUR, LIVED
EXPERIENCES BOTH AS UNDOCUMENTED
STUDENTS, BUT ALSO THE ONES WHO
ARE WORKING IN THIS IN THIS
SPACE AND POPULATION. SO THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT, WE ARE
MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT ISSUE.
SHOULD GO FAIRLY QUICKLY FOR THE
REST. NÓ SWITCHING GEARS HERE
NOW I'M GOING TO BE TALKING
ABOUT CALFRESH AND FOOD PROGRAMS
. OKAY. GOOD MORNING CHAIRPERSON
MENGIBAR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ALEXIS
FERNANDEZ GARCIA. I AM THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE FAMILY
ENGAGEMENT AND EMPOWERMENT
DIVISION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES. TODAY, I'M
GOING TO ANSWER A COUPLE
QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE
CALFRESH TIME LIMIT FOR ABLE
BODIED ADULTS WITHOUT
DEPENDENTS. THE EXISTING
CALFRESH FRUIT AND VEGGIE PILOT,
AND THE NEW SUMMER EBT PROGRAM.
I'M JUST GOING TO ANSWER THE
QUESTIONS DIRECTLY. I'M
AVAILABLE FOR MORE BACKGROUND,
OF COURSE, BUT I KNOW WE'RE
SHORT ON TIME, SO THE STATES
CURRENT STATEWIDE WAIVER, WHICH,
ALLOWS US NOT TO IMPLEMENT THE
TIME LIMIT ON ABODES, EXPIRES ON
OCTOBER 31ST, 2024, PENDING THE
RELEASE OF RELEVANT UNEMPLOYMENT
DATA. WE WILL CONDUCT AN
ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE
STATE'S ELIGIBILITY FOR ANOTHER
WAIVER THAT WOULD BEGIN NOVEMBER
1ST, 2024. AS IN YEARS PAST, WE
ARE GOING TO SUBMIT A REQUEST
FOR A STATEWIDE WAIVER IF WE'RE
ELIGIBLE OR A GEOGRAPHIC WAIVER
THAT WAIVES THE TIME LIMIT FOR
THE GREATEST NUMBER OF ABLE
BODIED ADULTS WITHOUT
DEPENDENTS. WE EXPECT A RESPONSE
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY
SUMMER 2024. YOU ALSO ASKED SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT RECENT CHANGES
TO THE ABODE TIME LIMIT POLICY.
THESE OCCURRED FEDERALLY. THESE
CHANGES, IMPACT THE AGE
THRESHOLD FOR WHICH WE HAVE TO
APPLY THE TIME LIMIT, AS WELL AS
ADDING SOME NEW EXEMPTION
CATEGORIES. SO PREVIOUSLY, THE
TIME LIMIT APPLIED TO
INDIVIDUALS BETWEEN THE AGES OF
18 AND 49 AND UNDER THE FISCAL
RESPONSIBILITY ACT THAT
AUTHORIZED THESE CHANGES, THE
THRESHOLD INCREASES FROM AGE 50
TO 55 OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS.
IN ADDITION, THERE ARE NEW
EXEMPTION CATEGORIES. SO THESE
ARE PEOPLE WHO WOULD NOT BE
SUBJECT TO THE TIME LIMIT. IT
INCLUDES INDIVIDUALS
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS,
VETERANS AND CERTAIN FORMER
FOSTER YOUTH. AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER, THIS WILL INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS DETERMINE
EXEMPT FROM THE TIME LIMIT. SO
THIS IS A GOOD THING, THERE IS
SOME AUTOMATION UNDERWAY TO
IMPLEMENT THESE CHANGES WITHIN
THE STATE'S ELIGIBILITY SYSTEM.
COSORES. IT IS SCHEDULED TO BE
RELEASED AT THE END OF THIS
MONTH, SO IT WILL BE IN PLACE
BEFORE WE HAVE ANOTHER WAIVER,
WHICH STARTS NOVEMBER FIRST AS
WELL. WE ARE WORKING ON
IMPLEMENTING A NEW ONLINE FLOW
THAT WILL ALLOW CALFRESH
RECIPIENTS TO SELF-IDENTIFY
THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR AN
EXEMPTION. SO YOU ASKED ABOUT,
FOR EXAMPLE, THAT EBT THEFT FORM
IT WOULD BE SIMILAR ONLINE. YOU
AS A CUSTOMER CAN ACCESS IT
DIRECTLY AND LET US KNOW IF YOU
BELIEVE YOU ARE EXEMPT FROM THE
TIME LIMIT. THIS SCREENING
PROCESS, WILL RESULT DEPENDING
ON THE EXEMPTION CATEGORY IN
EITHER THE COUNTY BEING ABLE TO
ACCEPT SELF-ATTESTATION OR
HAVING TO FOLLOW UP WITH SOME
ADDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS AND WE
CURRENTLY ANTICIPATE THAT TO BE
RELEASED SOMETIME IN EARLY 2025.
IT'S A BIT OF A WAYS OUT, SO I
DON'T HAVE A MONTH FOR YOU, BUT
IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE YEAR,
THEN YOU ASK SOME QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
PILOT. WE, THE STATE,
ANTICIPATES FULLY EXPENDING
INCENTIVE FUNDING THAT WAS
OFFERED UNDER THE PILOT IN APRIL
2024, WITH THE PILOT OFFICIALLY
ENDING ON THE 14TH. SO IN A
COUPLE OF DAYS, BECAUSE OF THE
RATE OF EXPENDITURE, WE ARE
WORKING CLOSELY WITH GRANTEE
PARTNERS TO INFORM CLIENTS AND
SUPPORT RETAILERS AND WINDING
DOWN THE PROJECT. WE ARE ALSO
SET TO WORK ON AN EVALUATION,
WHICH IS DUE TO THE LEGISLATURE
ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025. WILL THE
INFRASTRUCTURE STILL BE IN PLACE
IF DOWN THE LINE? WE WANT TO,
YES. SO SINCE ITS INCEPTION, THE
PILOT'S OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN TO
IMPLEMENT SCALABLE TECHNOLOGY VÆ
THAT WE TESTED IN A HANDFUL OF
COUNTIES UNDER THE PILOT, AND
THAT COULD INFORM BROADER
SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT PROGRAMS IN
THE FUTURE. SO IT WILL BE IN
PLACE. OKAY OKAY. I'M NOW GOING
TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE
NEW SUMMER EBT PROGRAM. SO FOR
SUMMER 2024, WE ARE PLANNING TO
HAVE THE SUMMER EBT PROGRAM
ADMINISTERED AT THE STATE LEVEL,
AND IT WILL PROVIDE AN
ADDITIONAL $120 IN FOOD
BENEFITS, $40 FOR EACH MONTH OF
JUNE, JULY AND AUGUST TO
APPROXIMATELY 5.3 MILLION
ELIGIBLE CHILDREN, WE ANTICIPATE
ISSUING THOSE BENEFITS ON A
DEDICATED SUMMER EBT CARD
BEGINNING IN JUNE 2024, AND DUE
TO THE SIZE OF OUR CASELOAD
LIKELY THROUGH EARLY FALL OF
2024, WE ARE PLANNING TO LAUNCH
AN OUTREACH AND MESSAGING
CAMPAIGN. WE ARE ESTABLISHING A
DEDICATED SUMMER EBT HELPLINE IN
THE MONTHS LEADING UP TO THE
ISSUANCE OF CARDS AS WELL, WE'VE
NOW LAUNCHED OUR REGULAR PARTNER
MEETINGS, WHICH OCCUR REGULARLY
AND INCLUDE INFORMATION SHARING,
PLANNING AND WHATNOT. SO THESE
THESE PLANS ARE PENDING FEDERAL
APPROVAL. I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE
SURE THAT IS CLEAR. OUR PLAN IS
WITH THE FEDS, BUT WE ARE
CURRENTLY ON TRACK TO RECEIVE
TIMELY APPROVAL AND BEGIN
ISSUING BENEFITS IN 2024. AND TO
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT
ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
MAY BE NEEDED TO FULFILL FEDERAL
REQUIREMENTS IN THE FUTURE, THE
INTERIM FINAL RULE, WHICH WAS
ISSUED BY THE FEDS TO IMPLEMENT
THIS PROGRAM, JUST CAME TO US AT
THE END, DECEMBER 29TH OF 2023.
SO IT'S ONLY BEEN A FEW MONTHS
THAT WE'VE HAD THIS, IN FRONT OF
US. BUT IT DOES INTRODUCE
SIGNIFICANT ADMINISTRATIVE
REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF SUMMER EBT.
THESE ARE REQUIREMENTS WELL
BEYOND THOSE RELATED TO PANDEMIC
EBT. YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH
THIS. IT'S SORT OF THE
PREDECESSOR PROGRAM OF SUMMER
EBT THAT WE IMPLEMENTED DURING
THE PANDEMIC. THE RULE
ESTABLISHES REQUIREMENTS RELATED
TO A LAUNDRY LIST OF ITEMS. I
WON'T NAME THEM ALL, BUT I'LL
GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. THE
AVAILABILITY OF A DEDICATED
SUMMER EBT APPLICATION, DATA AND
CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, VERY
AGGRESSIVE ISSUANCE TIMELINES.
FOR EXAMPLE, MAKING BENEFITS
AVAILABLE TO CLIENTS WITHIN 15
DAYS OF RECEIVING A APPLICATION,
A NEW NOTICING REQUIREMENTS, FOR
EXAMPLE, AN APPROVAL NOTICE, A
DENIAL NOTICE, HEARINGS AND
APPEAL RIGHTS. IT'S, IT IS A NEW
PERMANENT FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT
PROGRAM. SO YOU CAN IMAGINE IT
COMES WITH QUITE A BIT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS. SO
WHILE THE USDA HAS OFFERED
LIMITED FLEXIBILITIES THAT HAVE
PROVEN ESSENTIAL TO ISSUING
BENEFITS BEGINNING SUMMER 2024,
IT IS UNCLEAR WHETHER THESE
FLEXIBILITIES WILL BE AVAILABLE
ONGOING. WHICH REQUIREMENTS MAY
BE WAIVABLE OR FOR HOW LONG. SO
THE ADMINISTRATION IS ASSESSING
THE ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL BE
NECESSARY TO MEET THESE
REQUIREMENTS AND ENSURE APPROVAL
OF NOT ONLY OUR CURRENT PLAN FOR
SUMMER 2024, BUT FUTURE PLANS AS
WELL. THEY ARE DUE ANNUALLY TO
THE USDA, AND I'LL JUST WRAP UP
BY SAYING, OVER THE NEXT FEW
YEARS, THE DEPARTMENT IS
COMMITTED TO SIMULTANEOUSLY
ISSUING BENEFITS AND WORKING
TOWARD THAT PERMANENT
OPERATIONAL MODEL THAT MEETS
THOSE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS AND
TO ENSURE THAT SUMMER EBT IS
AVAILABLE TO ALL ELIGIBLE
CHILDREN. SO I WILL STOP THERE.
DO WE DOES THE DEPARTMENT HAVE
THE CAPACITY OR INFRASTRUCTURE
IN PLACE TO MEET ALL THOSE
ADDITIONAL FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS?
SO GIVEN THAT THE RULE JUST CAME
OUT AT THE END OF THE YEAR, IT
HAS BEEN, WE HAVE BEEN ASSESSING
AND WILL CONTINUE TO ASSESS WHAT
IT WILL TAKE. SO I MENTIONED
MANY OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND
SO WE WILL HAVE UPDATES FOR YOU
ADMIN COSTS LATER DOWN THE LINE.
WE WILL HAVE UPDATES HEADING
INTO THE MAY REVISION. IT'S OKAY
. IT CAME OUT YOU KNOW SHORTLY
BEFORE THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET. SO
OUT OF THE 5.3 MILLION, KIDS WHO
ARE ELIGIBLE, APPROXIMATELY 30%
WON'T BE LIKE STREAMLINED,
CERTIFIED. YES, THEY HAVE TO
APPLY. YEAH. HOW IS THERE? OR
MAYBE. YEAH. LET ME TALK TO ME A
LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. SO
CHILDREN THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
FREE OR REDUCED PRICE MEALS OR
WHO ARE ELIGIBLE BASED ON BEING
A RECIPIENT OF CALFRESH,
CALWORKS OR MEDI-CAL MAKE UP THE
5.3 MILLION POPULATION. BECAUSE
OF THE WAY THAT FREE OR REDUCED
PRICE MEAL ELIGIBILITY IS
DETERMINED, THERE ARE A COUPLE
WAYS THAT YOU BECOME ELIGIBLE
FOR SUMMER EBT, EITHER BASED ON
DATA WE ALREADY HAVE IN OUR
ELIGIBILITY SYSTEM, YOU GET
CALFRESH, YOU GET CALWORKS, OR
YOU GET MEDI-CAL, WE SEND YOU A
CARD AUTOMATICALLY. WE ALREADY
HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT YOU
BECAUSE YOU FILLED OUT A FREE OR
REDUCED PRICE MEAL APPLICATION.
YOU GET A CARD OUT
AUTOMATICALLY. THERE ARE A
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS, AS YOU
MENTIONED, THAT ARE IN A SCHOOL
WHERE THEY ARE DETERMINED
ELIGIBLE BASED ON COMMUNITY
ELIGIBILITY. SO THE WHOLE SCHOOL
RECEIVES FREE OR REDUCED PRICE
MEALS BECAUSE THE SCHOOLS, ALL
THE STUDENTS AT THE SCHOOL,
THEIR INCOMES ARE LOW ENOUGH
THAT THEY ALL QUALIFY BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE DATA ON EACH AND
EVERY ONE OF THOSE CHILDREN WHO
ATTEND THOSE COMMUNITY
ELIGIBILITY SCHOOLS. THOSE
CHILDREN WILL HAVE TO APPLY FOR
SUMMER EBT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT
YET APPLIED FOR FREE SCHOOL
MEALS. WE RECEIVE FLEXIBILITY
FOR 24, SO WE HAVE A PATH FOR
ISSUING BENEFITS IN SUMMER OF
2024. BUT IN THE FUTURE, WITHOUT
THEM HAVING TO APPLY THAT UP.
YES, WELL, THEY WOULD HAVE TO
APPLY FOR FREE SCHOOL MEALS. OH,
SO IT WOULDN'T BE FOR SUMMER?
THEY APPLY FOR IT, RIGHT? SO YOU
FILL OUT A WELL, YOU FILL OUT AN
ALTERNATIVE INCOME FORM, WHICH
IN CALIFORNIA ALLOWS YOU TO BE
DETERMINED, ELIGIBLE FOR FREE OR
REDUCED PRICE MEALS. AND THEN WE
USE THAT DATA TO ISSUE YOU A
SUMMER EBT CARD AUTOMATICALLY.
OKAY. AND OUR OUR GOAL AFTER
THIS, FLEXIBILITY IS TO ENSURE
EQUITY THAT WE'RE GETTING TO
THOSE KIDS FOR WE ARE COMMITTED
TO MAXIMIZING OUR AUTOMATIC
ISSUANCES. IT IS MUCH EASIER FOR
US AS WELL AS THE STATE. SO WE
WANT TO MAXIMIZE THAT NUMBER OF
KIDS WHO ARE DETERMINED,
ELIGIBLE AND THEN HAVE AN
ACCESSIBLE, YOU KNOW, PREFERABLY
ONLINE APPLICATION IN MULTIPLE
LANGUAGES SO THAT STUDENTS ARE
ABLE TO APPLY EASILY. THANK YOU.
ELIO. SONIA. ANY COMMENT? SONIA
RUSSO WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE, OUR OFFICE
WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THESE
EFFORTS FOR KEY TAKEAWAYS OR
ISSUES TO RAISE ONE OTHER EFFORT
WE WOULD RAISE FOR THE
LEGISLATURE. WE'D ALSO RECOMMEND
THAT YOU CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE
CFAP EXPANSION, GIVEN THE
POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT
OUTYEAR COSTS. WITH THAT, OKAY.
THANK YOU. DEPARTMENT FINANCE,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING
ELSE? I KNOW I'M KHN TO
PERMANENT FINANCE. NOTHING
FURTHER. OKAY IF I IF I COULD
JUST ASK SO THE IT SOUNDS LIKE
IT'S GOING TO BE A MAD DASH TO
BE ABLE TO GET ALL THIS DONE.
DOES THAT DOES THAT EXPOSE US TO
MORE FRAUD? BECAUSE SUMMER EBT
BENEFITS ARE ISSUED BASED ON
EXISTING PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY,
YOU ALREADY WERE DETERMINED
ELIGIBLE FOR CALFRESH CALWORKS
YOU WERE ALREADY DETERMINED
ELIGIBLE FOR SCHOOL MEALS. THE
POTENTIAL FOR FRAUD ON THE
CLIENT SIDE IS VERY LIMITED.
THIS IS YOU KNOW, ELIGIBILITY
HAS BEEN DETERMINED ALREADY FOR
OTHER PROGRAMS. I MEAN, THE
SKIMMING, I GUESS BECAUSE OF THE
TIMELINES WE WILL BE ISSUING IN
THIS FIRST YEAR ON THE EXISTING
EBT CARD THAT IS AVAILABLE TO
THE STATE NØ CHIP FOR THIS ONE,
NO CHIP TAP FOR THIS ROUND. THAT
IS SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING AT
FOR THE NEXT ITERATION OF SUMMER
EBT. THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT
INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITATIONS. MY
COLLEAGUE RYAN SPOKE TO THESE TO
GET THAT INTO PLACE. BEFORE IT'S
NOT POSSIBLE BEFORE WE HAVE TO
START ISSUING. OKAY I WILL SAY
ON THAT TOPIC, THE SUMMER EBT
BENEFITS. EXCUSE ME, CAN BE
SPENT FIRST BY A FAMILY EVEN IN
OUT YEARS. SO BECAUSE OF THESE,
SORRY. SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE OF
LIMITATIONS RELATED TO BEING
ABLE TO REPLACE BENEFITS. SUMMER
EBT BENEFITS WILL BE SPENT FIRST
TO PREVENT SKIMMING AND SCAMMING
. I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND
THAT NGUYEN BENEFITS ARE LOADED
ONTO CARDS. THERE IS AN ORDER IN
WHICH THEY'RE PULLED OFF OF THE
CARD TO BE SPENT, AND SUMMER EBT
BENEFITS WILL BE SPENT FIRST
AUTOMATICALLY ON THE BACK END.
SO SUMMER FUNDS ARE GOING ON THE
IN THE FUTURE. THE SAME CARD ON
THE SAME CARD. OH OKAY.
POTENTIALLY YEAH. THAT'S OUR
GOAL OKAY. AND HOW MUCH IS IT
THE BENEFIT. YEAH IS IT I MEAN
IT'S $120 PER ELIGIBLE CHILD IN
A LUMP SUM AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE SUMMER PER MONTH, OR JUST
ONE LUMP SUM $120. OKAY. THANK
YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
MOVING ON TO ISSUE NUMBER SIX,
COW SAUCE.
RYAN, YOU'RE NOT JOINING? NO, I
HAD A I HAD RYAN HERE. NO NO.
HI. HI. GOOD EVENING, GOOD
AFTERNOON. ALMOST EVENING. NO,
WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO TO THAT,
WE'VE LOST ALL OF OUR AUDIENCE,
THOUGH, BUT, THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. COMMITTEE MEMBER EGGMAN,
MY NAME IS BRANDON HANSARD. I'M
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF BENEFIT
ENROLLMENT TECHNOLOGY AT THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSE, CALIFORNIA
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
AGENCY, OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY AND
SOLUTIONS INTEGRATION, THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE. I
WANTED TO THANK YOUR STAFF FOR
THE INCLUSION OF THE BUDGET
DETAIL IN THE AGENDA. AND JUST
NOTE, I'LL REFER TO SOME OF
THOSE TABLES IN THIS OVERVIEW.
BEFORE WE GET STARTED, THOUGH,
I'D LIKE TO TAKE ONE MOMENT,
COMMEND THE CAL SAU PROJECT FOR
THEIR SUCCESSFUL MIGRATION TO A
SINGLE SOURCE ELIGIBILITY SYSTEM
FOR ALL 58 COUNTIES. THEY DID
THIS IN OCTOBER OF 2023, AND
THAT MILESTONE IS A CULMINATION
OF OVER FIVE YEARS OF DEDICATED
EFFORT BY THE CAL SAU CONSORTIUM
PROJECT AND VENDOR STAFF, WITH
SUPPORT OF COUNTIES, STATE AND
FEDERAL PARTNERS AND FRANKLY,
ACHIEVES A GOAL MANY DECADES IN
THE MAKING, ALSO, WE'D BE REMISS
NOT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE LEADERSHIP OF
THE CAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JOHN
BOULET, WHO, AS HE NEARS HIS
RETIREMENT, IF HE WAS HERE
TODAY, HE WOULD DEFINITELY DEFER
THAT ACKNOWLEDGMENT. AND PASS
THAT ON TO THE GREAT WORK OF HIS
PROJECT TEAM. BUT I DO WANT TO
NOTE HIS STEADFASTNESS AND
VISION FOR CAL SAU HAS HELPED
ENSURE THIS SUCCESS, I'M GOING
TO NOW GO TO THE BUDGET AND THE
QUESTIONS THAT WERE POSED, THIS
CAN BE EXTENSIVE. SO DEPENDING
ON HOW HOW DEEP YOU WANT TO
DIVE, WE CAN WE CAN CONTINUE TO
DO SO. BUT THE COUNCIL'S BUDGET
FOR 20 2425 INCLUDES 300
MILLION, OR 87% FOR GENERAL
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS.
ÓRDENES OPERATIONS FOR CAL SAU
INCLUDES HARDWARE, SOFTWARE,
CLOUD SERVICES, TECHNICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES SUCH AS
WIDE AREA NETWORK, LOCAL AREA
NETWORK, HELP DESK SYSTEM,
PERFORMANCE MONITORING, BATCH
OPERATIONS, PROJECT MANAGEMENT,
PERSONNEL AND LEGAL SERVICES,
PRINT SERVICES, QUALITY
ASSURANCE, AND FACILITIES. THE
REMAINING 46 MILLION
ACCOMMODATES ALL FUTURE OR
ACCOMMODATES THE FUTURE SYSTEM
CHANGES FOR EACH YEAR, AND OF
THAT, 46 MILLION 17.5 IS LIMITED
TO CLIENT CORRESPONDENCE
ENHANCEMENTS. BENEFITS. CAL
PORTAL MOBILE ENHANCEMENTS AND
CAL. HERE'S INTERFACE
ENHANCEMENTS. APPROXIMATELY 28.6
MILLION WILL BE UTILIZED FOR
OTHER CHANGES, INCLUDING REGULAR
POLICY, MAINTENANCE AND COST BY
EACH CATEGORY ARE INCLUDED IN
THE AGENDA ON PAGE 36. IF YOU
WANT TO SEE THE DETAIL, AND OF
THAT JUST TO NOTE THAT WE'VE
ALSO ADDED A TABLE TO BREAK DOWN
, SYSTEM CHANGES, INTO MORE
HISTORICAL CATEGORIES, BUT
LEGISLATIVE AND RECURRING ONLINE
HELP CAL SAU BENEFITS CAL AND SO
FORTH. SO, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE
EXISTING BUDGET FOR THESE
CHANGES WOULD COME FROM. SECOND
PART OF THE FIRST QUESTION WAS
HOW DO WE EXPECT CONTRACT
CHANGES TO, IMPACT THIS BUDGET?
AND I'LL NOTE CAL SOURCE IS IN
IN PROCESS OF COMPLETING,
PROCUREMENT FOR MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
AND BUT CAL DOES NOT ANTICIPATE
SIGNIFICANT OVERALL BUDGET
CHANGES DUE TO THESE
REPROCUREMENT EFFORTS. THE COST
FOR EACH CATEGORY WILL BE
ALIGNED TO THE NEW CONTRACT
COSTS, AS THEY'RE APPROVED BY
BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL PARTNERS,
AND THESE UPDATES WILL RESULT IN
COST SHIFTS ACROSS THE
CATEGORIES, WITH MINOR BUT NOT
SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS, THE BUDGET
WE UPDATE THIS BUDGET AT LEAST
ANNUALLY, UTILIZING THE FEDERAL
ADVANCE PLANNING DOCUMENT
PROCESS, AS REQUIRED BY OUR
FEDERAL PARTNERS, BOTH USDA AND
CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND
MEDICAID, OKAY. NUMBER TWO, HOW
WILL THE COUNCIL'S BUDGET CHANGE
NOW THAT THE MIGRATION OF ALL
THE COUNTIES INTO THE SINGLE
SYSTEM IS COMPLETE AND THE
FUNDING FOR 2324 FOR MIGRATION
WAS ONLY 37.1 MILLION OF THAT
ENTIRE BUDGET. AND THAT'S AGAIN
BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN A MULTIPLE
YEAR, MULTIPLE WAVE. SO IN 23,
24, WE INCLUDED PARTIAL YEAR
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, AS
WELL AS DNI FOR THAT MIGRATION.
SO AS EACH COUNTY CAME FORWARD,
DIDI AND I CLOSED OUT
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS. NOW
STARTED FOR THOSE COUNTIES. SO
AS THOSE COSTS HAVE THE DNI
COSTS DECREASED MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATION COSTS INCREASE UNTIL
THE FINAL MIGRATION. SO 2425
WILL BE OUR FIRST YEAR OF FULL
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FOR
ALL 58 COUNTIES. AND WE NOTE
THAT WHILE IT'S OFFSETTING THAT,
YOU KNOW, THE FUTURE COSTS WILL
BE DETERMINED BASED ON THE NEED
TO MAINTAIN CAL SOURCE. SECOND
PART OF THE QUESTION WAS WHAT IS
HOW WILL THIS SPEED AT WHICH CAL
SOURCE IS ABLE TO AUTOMATE NEW
POLICIES CHANGE NOW THAT THE
MIGRATION IS COMPLETE? THE
SECOND PART OF QUESTION TWO,
MADAM CHAIR, SO LITTLE NUANCE
HERE, BUT I WANT TO WANT TO BE
VERY CLEAR, THE SPEED AT WHICH
CAL SOURCE CAN AUTOMATE A NEW
POLICY WILL NOT CHANGE WITH THE
COMPLETION OF MIGRATION, BUT CAL
SOURCE WILL NO LONGER HAVE TO
FACTOR IN MIGRATION WORK FOR THE
TIMING OF THAT AUTOMATION. AND
SO IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINES WILL
REMAIN DEPENDENT UPON THE
COMPLEXITY OF THE POLICY CHANGE,
CAPACITY OF RESOURCES AVAILABLE,
AND THE OVERALL VOLUME OF ANY
OTHER POLICY CHANGES TARGETED
FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN THE SAME
TIME FRAME. BUT THE VOLUME OF
POLICY CHANGES CAL SOURCE HAS
BEEN ABLE TO IMPLEMENT HAS
INCREASED SINCE THE MIGRATION,
AND THAT WAS EXPECTED AGAIN AS
MIGRATION EFFORT CLOSED OUT.
CAPACITY FOR THESE POLICY
AUTOMATIONS INCREASED. ALL
RIGHT. QUESTION THREE PLEASE
DESCRIBE ONGOING FUNDING
POSITIONS FOR OSI OR NOW ÖTESI
TO DIRECT GOVERNANCE AND OVERSEE
THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF CAL SOURCE, THAT HAS BEEN
IMPLEMENTED. SO ÖTESI IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATE LEVEL
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND THE
OVERSIGHT OF CAL SOURCE. AND IT
INCLUDES THE ADMINISTRATIVE,
OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT OF OUR
TECHNICAL IV AND V CONTRACTOR IN
WHICH WE USE TO VALIDATE THE
TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS BEING BEING
PROVIDED. OUR DIRECTOR SERVES AS
THE STATE'S EX-OFFICIO,
NON-VOTING BOARD MEMBER,
REPRESENTING THE STATE
ADMINISTRATION ÖTESI DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES, AND
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE
SERVICES AT THE CAL SAU JOINT
POWERS AUTHORITY BOARD OF
DIRECTORS AND THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS ARE WHO MANAGE ON
BEHALF OF THE 58 COUNTIES. CAL
SOURCE. IT IS A CONSORTIUM. SO
UNDER THE MY LEADERSHIP OF THE
BENEFIT ENROLLMENT TECHNOLOGY
SUPPORT DIVISION, WE'RE
RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING AND
MONITORING PARTICIPATING IN THE
SOURCE PROJECT TASKS AND
ACTIVITIES, ENSURING THE
COMPLIANCE WITH OUR STATE AND
FEDERAL STANDARDS AND
REGULATIONS, AS WELL AS IT BEST
PRACTICES. WE COLLABORATE WITH
OUR STATE PARTNERS FOR STRATEGIC
APPROACHES FOR CAL SOURCE
ACTIVITIES, WE ACT AS A POINT OF
CONTACT FOR ALL PROJECT ISSUES
AT A STATE LEVEL AND A POINT OF
CONTACT FOR OUR FEDERAL SPONSORS
AND A POINT OF CONTACT FOR
LEGISLATURE AND ANY OTHER
INQUIRIES, WE MANAGE, AS I SAID,
OUR THIRD PARTY IV AND V VENDOR
SO THAT WE CAN ALSO HAVE THAT
TECHNICAL INSIGHT INTO THE
SOLUTION BEING PROVIDED AND THAT
WILL BE ONGOING WITH THESE NEW
POLICY AUTOMATIONS THAT WILL
BECOME IN SCOPE. AND WE MONITOR
THE RISKS AND ISSUES AND, YOU
KNOW, LOOK FOR STRATEGIES TO, TO
HELP OVERCOME THEM. SECOND, PART
OF THE QUESTION IS HOW DOES OTS
AND SOCIAL SERVICES FACILITATE
STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT WITH CAL SAU WHEN
ISSUES ARISE. SO WHEN
STAKEHOLDERS RAISE THEIR ISSUES
ABOUT THEIR CLIENT EXPERIENCE,
WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY
BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES AND HEALTH CARE
SERVICES. HERE AT OTS, WE ALSO
ENSURE THAT ALL THOSE VOICES ARE
HEARD. WHETHER THE INITIAL
CONCERNS ARE RAISED THROUGH THE
PROJECT MANAGEMENT, THE PROJECT
MANAGED COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
OR DIRECTLY TO US OR TO YOU, WE
LISTEN AND LOOK FOR THE WAYS TO
BE ABLE TO GUIDE THOSE, THOSE,
THOSE ISSUES BACK INTO THE
PROCESSES THAT THAT ARE IN PLACE
. SOME OF THOSE PROCESSES ARE
THAT CAL SAU, OTS AND SOCIAL
SERVICES. WE MAINTAIN VARIETY OF
CHANNELS FOR THE STAKEHOLDERS TO
OBTAIN INFORMATION AND PROVIDE
INPUT. CAL SAU STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS THAT ARE
FACILITATED, FACILITATED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ON
A QUARTERLY BASIS, IS A PUBLIC
FORUM TO DISCUSS CURRENT AND
PLANNED FUNCTIONALITY CHANGES,
SYSTEM DEMONSTRATIONS OF PUBLIC
PORTALS AND MOBILE APPLICATIONS,
AND STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS AROUND
PUBLIC FACING ELEMENTS OF CAL
SAU BENEFITS, CAL OR OTHER
SYSTEM FUNCTIONALITY THAT
DIRECTLY IMPACTS CUSTOMERS.
THERE'S ALSO THE BENEFITS CAL
COLLABORATION MODEL MEETINGS
FACILITATED BY THE CAL SOURCE
PROJECT. IT'S A FORUM FOR
STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATIVES TO
DISCUSS AND PRIORITIZE
ENHANCEMENTS TO BENEFITS. CAL
THERE'S ALSO THE BENEFITS CAL
MONTHLY USER CENTERED DESIGN
MEETINGS, AGAIN, LOOKING AT
HUMAN CENTERED DESIGN. CUSTOMER
FIRST, AND IN ADDITION, THIS IS
ONE OF THE UNIQUE PROJECTS THAT
THE ENTIRE GOVERNANCE IS PUBLIC,
WHETHER IT'S THE JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITY MEETINGS OR THE
PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE
MEETINGS, THEY ARE OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC AND OFFER THAT
OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE INPUT. SO
THAT COMPLETES MY, ANSWERS TO
THE QUESTIONS. AND WITH OPEN TO
ANY OTHER FOLLOW ON. THANKS,
BRANDON. LEÓN A COMMENT. BRIAN
METZGER. LEO, THE AGENDA DOES A
GOOD JOB OF NOTING THE
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT LANGUAGE
THAT WAS ADOPTED AS PART OF LAST
YEAR'S BUDGET, SO WE JUST HAVE
SOME FOLLOW ON COMMENTS ON ON
THAT LANGUAGE, THE LANGUAGE
APPROVED LAST YEAR PROVIDES FOR
A FINAL UPDATED REPORT FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER
PARTNERS ON CAL SAU STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT. BY THE END OF THE
CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. AND AS THE
AGENDA NOTES, THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ADVOCATE
STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE LISTED IN
THE AGENDA. SO WE WOULD
RECOMMEND THE LEGISLATURE
REQUEST A FINAL REPORT THAT NOT
ONLY UPDATES THE JANUARY REPORT,
BUT ALSO ASKS THE ADMINISTRATION
AND PROJECT TO RESPOND TO THOSE
ADVOCATE STAKEHOLDER
RECOMMENDATIONS, I HAVE MY NOTES
, HAVE DEPARTMENT RESPOND, OH,
THERE WE GO. CONSISTENT WITH OUR
RECOMMENDATION. GREAT, AND YOU
KNOW, OF COURSE, GIVEN THE
FISCAL PRESSURE FACING THE
STATE, JUST UNDERSTANDING WHICH
OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS COULD
NEED ADDITIONAL FUNDING OR
POSITIONS SUCH THAT YOU COULD
HAVE THAT CONTEXT TO MAKE
DECISIONS AND THOSE UPDATES TO
PROJECT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
COULD BE CONSIDERED BASED ON
THAT FINAL REPORT. IF YOU WANT
MORE ONGOING INFORMATION. THANK
YOU. DEPARTMENT FINANCE. EMILY,
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT? EMILY
MARSHALL, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
NOTHING FURTHER. OKAY NONE OF MY
QUESTIONS ARE DIRECTED YOUR WAY
THIS TIME. MR. BRANDON, I DON'T
KNOW, MR. BRANDON, IF YOU'RE
PREPARED TO RESPOND TO ANY OF
THE THINGS THAT CAME IN AS A
RESPONSE TO THAT, REPORT. WE'RE
WORKING WITH THE PROJECT AND THE
ADMINISTRATION PROJECT SPONSORS
TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THAT. BUT I
DON'T HAVE THAT TODAY. WOULD YOU
BE ABLE TO COME BACK WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT THE MAY REVISE TO
GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE UPDATE ON
HOW YOU WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD
WITH SOME OF THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS AS A
REPRESENTATIVE WOULD, WOULD
LIKELY BE AVAILABLE. I
PERSONALLY MAY NOT, DEPENDING ON
TIMING. OKAY, I WOULD, I WOULD
I'M REALLY INTERESTED TO SEE
BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WE HEAR ONE
THING AND THEN STAKEHOLDERS ARE
THEIR OPINION IS CONTRARY TO
WHAT SOME OF THE TIMES THE
REPORT WE'RE GETTING HERE. SO
I'D LIKE TO KNOW, IT JUST SEEMS
THERE'S STILL A LOT A LOT OF
LACK OF CLARITY AND
TRANSPARENCY, SO IF YOU COULD
SEND SOMEONE, IN A COUPLE OF
WEEKS OR MONTHS, I WOULD OFFER
THAT WE ARE WORKING ON A WRITTEN
RESPONSE TO THIS WITH THE
PROJECT, IN ADDITION, WITH THE
ASSEMBLY'S INQUIRY AS WELL. SO
AGAIN, I THINK IT'S, IT'S THEY
ASKED AS WELL. YES SO, AND
THAT'S WHY IT IS IN THE WORKS
RIGHT NOW, SO I THINK BY
STARTING OFF WITH OFFERING THAT
AND SEEING IT IN WRITING, AND
THEN WE CAN CAN SEE WHAT THE
NEXT STEPS ARE. I'M GOOD WITH
THAT. OKAY SENATOR EGGMAN, I
WOULD JUST MAKE THE POINT THAT
THE WRITTEN RESPONSES IS GOOD,
BUT THEN COMING BACK FOR THE
DIALOG, IT'S ALWAYS BETTER. YES
YEAH, THAT'S THE FIRST STEP.
READ IT FIRST. OKAY NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM. WE'RE
MOVING ON TO ISSUE NUMBER SEVEN.
THIS IS OUR FIRST BCP OF THE DAY
. ARE YOU READY TO RYAN. WHY IS
THIS MORE IMPORTANT THAN
CALWORKS? TELL ME. CDS WORKS
VERY CLOSELY WITH ODYSSEY IN
PARTNERSHIP. SO THEY THEY
REPRESENT US ON ALL THE MAJOR
BUDGET QUESTIONS. BUT WE'RE
WE'RE HAND IN HAND WITH THEM,
RYAN GILLETTE, DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES FIRST BCP, THIS
IS RELATED TO THE REQUEST FOR,
FUNDING FOR THE ZERO TRUST
ARCHITECTURE. SO AS BACKGROUND,
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY HAS MANDATED THAT ALL
STATE AGENCIES, ENTITIES AND
ENTITIES ASSESS PLAN AND
IMPLEMENT THE INITIAL STAGE OF
THE STATE ADOPTED ZERO TRUST
SECURITY MATURITY MODEL IN 2024,
WHICH IS A MULTIFACETED,
MULTI-YEAR EFFORT. ZERO TRUST
ARCHITECTURE IS A SECURITY
FRAMEWORK THAT UTILIZES LEAST
PRIVILEGE ACCESS DECISIONS
WITHIN A COMPUTER ENVIRONMENT,
MEANING USERS AND DEVICES ARE
ONLY GRANTED THE PERMISSIONS
THEY NEED TO PERFORM THEIR
TASKS. THIS HELPS REDUCE OVERALL
SECURITY RISK. SO AS AN ANALOGY,
ZERO TRUST ARCHITECTURE IS SORT
OF LIKE WELL, THE TRADITIONAL
MODEL IS IMAGINE, SECURITY, LIKE
A CASTLE WITH A MOAT. ONCE YOU
FIGURED OUT HOW TO GET ACROSS
THE MOAT AND GET INSIDE THE
CASTLE, YOU HAVE ACCESS TO
EVERYTHING UNDER ZERO TRUST.
IT'S MORE LIKE A HOTEL. WELL,
EVEN IF YOU'RE INSIDE, YOU NEED
TO HAVE A SPECIFIC KEYCARD IN
ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GET INTO ANY
GIVEN ROOM. THIS BCP REQUEST $2
MILLION FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
TO COMPLY WITH THIS STANDARD.
WITH APPROVAL OF THIS FUNDING,
CDSS WILL ENGAGE WITH
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND
INDUSTRY EXPERTS TO CONDUCT A
THOROUGH ASSESSMENT OF THE
DEPARTMENT'S CURRENT TECHNOLOGY
AND WORKFORCE AND THIS WILL
ENABLE THE DEPARTMENT TO
INITIATE COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES
AND DEFINE THE ONGOING
RESOURCES, TECHNOLOGY AND TIME
NEEDED TO MEET THESE EMERGING
REQUIREMENTS WHILE ENSURING OUR
PROGRESS TOWARDS ZERO TRUST
ENTERPRISE COMPLIANCE, IN TERMS
OF WHY IT IS NECESSARY TO INVEST
GENERAL FUND THIS YEAR, IT IS
NECESSARY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO
MEET CGRTS MANDATED 2024
TIMELINE. ADDITIONAL K¾T
SECURITY REQUIREMENTS WILL
FOLLOW TO BUILD UPON THIS
INITIAL WORK. IF THE DEPARTMENT
DOES NOT COMPLETE THE INITIAL
REQUIREMENTS IN 2024, IT WILL
PUT OUR ABILITY TO COMPLETE
SUBSEQUENT REQUIREMENTS AT RISK.
SINCE EACH PHASE BUILDS TOWARDS
THE NEXT AND WITHOUT THE GENERAL
FUND INVESTMENT SENSITIVE AND
CONFIDENTIAL DATA WILL ALSO
POTENTIALLY NOT BE PROTECTED TO
THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES AND
OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND MODERN,
FORTHCOMING CYBERSECURITY
ATTACKS COULD BE INCREASED,
WHICH COULD RESULT IN DATA
BREACHES OF SENSITIVE CLIENT
DATA FOR THE MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIANS THAT ARE SERVED BY
OUR PROGRAMS. THANK YOU. DID YOU
SAY BRIAN WAS YOUR NAME BRIAN?
BRIAN ANY COMMENT? NO CONCERNS
WITH THIS PROPOSAL. OKAY EMILY,
ANY FURTHER COMMENT? NO COMMENT.
THANK YOU. SO OUR DEADLINE,
RYAN, IS MAY 2024 OR ARE WE? BUT
I'M SEEING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
INITIATE IN NOVEMBER. SO WE'RE
GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT LATE.
BUT THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE
SERVICES TO START. THE
CONSULTANT, WE NEED TO BRING ON
THE SERVICES THAT WE CAN START
WORKING ON THIS PLAN. SO WE HAVE
SOME FLEXIBILITY IN PUSHING OUT
WHEN WE CAN START THIS. WELL, IF
WE DON'T START IT NOW, IT
POTENTIALLY DELAYS OUR ABILITY
TO TAKE THE REST OF THE STEPS
AND WE RISK ENDING UP ON THE
WRONG SIDE OF K¾T WITH THIS, WE
WANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE ARE
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEM AS IF WE
ARE NOT. THEN THEY MAY BE
RELUCTANT TO ADVANCE OTHER
EFFORTS AND INITIATIVES THAT
THAT WE ARE WORKING ON. IF THEY
DON'T FEEL LIKE WE ARE TAKING
MEANINGFUL STEPS TOWARDS
ADOPTING THIS ARCHITECTURE, THE
DEADLINE OF, WELL, THE ORIGINAL
DEADLINE IS MAY 2024. IT'S JUST
TO START THE PROCESS OR TO START
MAKING PROGRESS ON IT. YES.
THAT'S IT. I GUESS I'M JUST
WONDERING WHY WE JUST CAN'T PUSH
IT OUT JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE.
BECAUSE WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING,
IF I MAY, MADAM CHAIR, IS THAT
WE'LL BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH
K¾T. BUT WE ARE CALIFORNIA. I
MEAN, WE CAN CHANGE THE POLICY.
I MEAN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
CHANGE THE POLICY, THEN. OKAY
I'M JUST DOING THAT BECAUSE WE
SAID THEY HAD TO KHN CGRTS
BUDGET PAY FOR THIS. I DON'T
THINK I CAN SPEAK FOR K¾T ON
THIS. BRIAN METZGER LÀ NOT
CURRENTLY, NO, NOT CURRENTLY,
BECAUSE THERE'S NO FORMAL
MECHANISM. THEY WOULD NEED TO
REQUEST SOME TYPE OF EXPENDITURE
AUTHORITY FROM THEIR REVOLVING
FUND IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO
CHARGE POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS TO BE
ABLE TO COMPLY. BUT THAT'S NOT
SOMETHING THAT'S CURRENTLY
CONTEMPLATED IN THE BUDGET. AND
THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEY HAVE
BIXEL A BETTER MEANS TO PROVIDE
FUNDS FOR THIS. I'D HAVE TO TAKE
THAT QUESTION BACK. I'M NOT
SURE. I'D LIKE TO KNOW. I WOULD
JUST ADD, THOUGH, THE THERE IS
INHERENT VALUE IN DOING THIS.
OUR, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE ARE USING THE MOST
SECURE PROCESSES THAT WE HAVE IN
PLACE TO KEEP CONFIDENTIAL
CLIENT INFORMATION SECURE. I
MEAN, WE JUST HAD THIS WHOLE
CONVERSATION ABOUT ET THEFT AND
SECURITY. AND WHILE THIS IS A
DIFFERENT FLAVOR OF PROBLEM,
IT'S THE SAME SORT OF CHALLENGE
THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BE CAUGHT
BEHIND THE BALL ON THAT I
DEFINITELY WON'T DISAGREE WITH
YOU ON THAT. I'M JUST WONDERING
MAYBE WE CAN HAVE K¾T PAY THE
PAY FOR THE BILL? OKAY. AND THEN
EXPLAIN, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE
THIS IS GOING TO TAKE A COUPLE
OF YEARS. IT SAYS PRESENTATION.
SO YOU HAVE TO GET APPROVAL BY
K¾T AT 2025. THAT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING. YES. AND THEN IT
GETS IMPLEMENTED I BELIEVE SO,
YES. SO ARE YOU SAYING FOR THE
NEXT YEAR, YEAR WE'RE AT RISK
FOR THE NEXT YEAR WE WILL BE
PLANNING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE OUR
VULNERABILITIES ARE SO THAT WE
KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON,
WHERE WE NEED TO ADD STAFF,
TRAINING PRACTICES, WHATEVER. AT
THIS POINT, WE NEED TO DO THAT
ASSESSMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT
THESE FUNDS WILL HELP US DO.
OKAY, OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
WE'RE GOING TO HOLD THE ITEM
OPEN. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO
ISSUE NUMBER EIGHT. I ASKED FOR
ISSUES NUMBER EIGHT THROUGH 14.
SUPER BRIEF SENTENCE EACH SUPER
BRIEF FEDERAL FUNDING. TOTALLY
FINE. OKAY, ALEXIS FERNANDEZ
GARCIA, AGAIN, THE FIRST
POSITION FOR CAL FRESH
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, CAL
FRESH CONFIRM THIS IS ONE
POSITION TO MANAGE CURRENT AND
FUTURE WORKLOAD. IT IS 100% NOT
FUNDED WITH GENERAL FUND. GREAT.
SONIA SONIA RUSSO, LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE NO CONCERNS.
OKAY, HERE'S OUR DEAL.
DEPARTMENT FINANCE FOR THE NEXT
ITEMS IN LEO. WE GOT NOTHING.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO MOVE ON.
GREAT. OKAY. HOLDING THAT ITEM
OPEN. MOVING ON TO ISSUE NUMBER
NINE, ISSUE NUMBER NINE, CAL
FRESH HEALTHY LIVING SECTION
ALIGNMENT. THIS IS A HANDFUL OF
POSITIONS TO RIGHTSIZE THAT
SECTION. AGAIN NO STATE GENERAL
FUNDS WILL BE USED. ALL RIGHT.
HOLDING THE ITEM OPEN. ISSUE
NUMBER TEN OKAY. ISSUE NUMBER
TEN CAL FRESH OUTREACH UNIT
EXPANSION. THIS IS ONE
ADDITIONAL ANALYST POSITION. NO
STATE GENERAL FUND WILL BE USED
HOLDING THE ITEM OPEN. MOVING ON
TO ISSUE NUMBER 11 OKAY A LITTLE
BIT MORE COMPLICATED. I'LL BE
FAST, TODAY, CAL FRESH AND THE
CALIFORNIA FOOD ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM OVER ISSUANCE CLAIMS ARE
ESTABLISHED AND COLLECTED AS ONE
CLAIM, EFFECTIVE WITH THE
EXPANSION, WHICH MAKES CFAP
STATE FUNDED. WE WILL BE USING A
STATE BANK ACCOUNT TO FUND THOSE
BENEFITS. AS SUCH, WE NEED TO
ESTABLISH A CFAP OVER ISSUANCE
POLICY THAT ALIGNS WITH CAL
FRESH. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. HOLDING
THE ITEM OPEN. MOVING ON TO
ISSUE NUMBER 12. SO THIS TBL
PROPOSAL IS RELATED TO OUR
GUARANTEED INCOME PILOT. WE ARE
REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF THE
SUNSET DATE FROM JULY 1ST TO
JANUARY 2028 TO ENSURE THAT WE
ARE ABLE TO ISSUE BENEFITS AS
INTENDED. WE ARE ON TRACK. WE
HAVE LAUNCHED ALL OF THE PILOTS,
AND WE JUST NEED TIME TO MAKE
SURE ALL OF THE RECIPIENTS
RECEIVE PAYMENTS. PERFECT
PUTTING THE ITEM OPEN. MOVING ON
TO ISSUE NUMBER 13. OKAY, THIS
ONE IS NOT MINE. THAT IS MY
COLLEAGUE. THERE SHE IS. I'M OUT
. ELIANA, CANELONES DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES, NUMBER 13,
IMPROVING OPERATIONS TO SUPPORT
IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE CHILDREN.
THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR NINE
FEDERALLY FUNDED PERMANENT
POSITIONS AT AN ANNUAL COST OF
1.6 MILLION. THERE IS NO IMPACT
TO THE GENERAL FUND. IT WILL ADD
POSITIONS TO SUPPORT THE GROWING
NUMBER OF REFUGEE CHILDREN AND
YOUTH ARRIVING IN CALIFORNIA. I
MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS. TO
IMPLEMENT ONGOING. WHAT FEDERAL
INITIATIVES? WE HAVE SEVERAL
DIFFERENT NEW FUNDING STREAMS
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
WE'VE HAD AFGHAN REFUGEE SCHOOL
IMPACT GRANTS. WE'VE HAVE WE'VE
HAD DIFFERENT TYPES OF FEDERAL
FUNDING THAT HAS COME IN TO
SUPPORT YOUTH, IN PARTICULAR
MENTORING PROGRAMS, SEVERAL, BUT
NOT SOME OF THE PROGRAMS THAT WE
TALKED ABOUT, BECAUSE THESE ARE
FEDERALLY FUNDED ONLY FOR OFFICE
OF REFUGEE ELIGIBLE YOUTH THAT
HAVE CERTAIN IMMIGRATION STATUS
THAT ARRIVED THROUGH CERTAIN
PATHWAYS. SO IT'S SEPARATE AND
APART. FEDERAL FUNDING. OKAY,
OKAY. REPORTING THE ITEM OPEN.
MOVING ON TO ISSUE NUMBER 14.
ISSUE NUMBER 14 REFUGEE
RESETTLEMENT. INCREASE BCP
REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR 13
FEDERALLY FUNDED POSITIONS AT AN
ANNUAL COST OF 2.4 MILLION.
AGAIN, NO IMPACT TO THE GENERAL
FUND, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WE
HAVE SEVERAL NEW FEDERALLY
FUNDED INITIATIVES AND A LARGE
INCREASE IN REFUGEES, SIVS AND
OTHER CUBAN, HAITIAN,
NICARAGUAN, VENEZUELAN,
UKRAINIAN POPULATIONS ARRIVING
TO THE STATE. AND SO WE HAVE
REQUESTED ADDITIONAL STAFF FOR
THESE SERVICES WHO, RUNS THESE
PROGRAMS? WE DO AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.
WE ADMINISTER AND OVERSEE SOME
OF THE PUBLIC BENEFITS ARE
DIRECTLY ADMINISTERED BY THE
COUNTIES, BUT WE ALSO HAVE
SEPARATE CONTRACTS WITH
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND
RESETTLEMENT AGENCIES THAT ARE
ALSO FUNDED THROUGH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. OKAY HOLDING THE
ITEM OPEN. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
DEPARTMENT THAT CONCLUDES YOUR
ISSUES. MOVING ON TO THE FINAL
FINAL THING ON THE AGENDA, ISSUE
NUMBER 15. I WILL NOTE THERE ARE
FOUR ITEMS ON HERE FOR NON
PRESENTATION PRESENTATION ITEMS.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ MORE ABOUT
IT IT'S ON THE AGENDA. WE HAVE
ONE ITEM FOR PRESENTATION TODAY
ON CAL BRIDGE SAFE DRINKING
WATER PILOT EXTENSION. SO YOU
HAVE THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. AND REALLY
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT. AND ALSO
WANT TO START BY THANKING YOU
FOR FUNDING THIS IN LAST YEAR'S
BUDGET. SO WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT IT
AGAIN THIS YEAR. THE CALFRESH
SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM,
WHICH IS HELPING CALFRESH
PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE FACING AN
ADDITIONAL CHALLENGE OF UNSAFE
DRINKING WATER. SO I WANT TO
START AGAIN BY THANKING THE
COMMITTEE, BUT ALSO OUR PARTNERS
AT CDSS, AND IN PARTICULAR, KERN
COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES, WHICH HAS
DONE A GREAT JOB ADMINISTERING
THE PROGRAM. SO UNFORTUNATELY,
THE PROBLEM OF UNSAFE DRINKING
WATER AS YOU PROBABLY ARE AWARE,
IS SEVERE, WIDESPREAD AND
ONGOING IN OUR STATE. ACCORDING
TO THE LAO, OVER 1 MILLION
CALIFORNIANS LACK ACCESS TO SAFE
DRINKING WATER, AND IT'S
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTING
LATINO, RURAL AND LOWER INCOME
COMMUNITIES AND ESPECIALLY IN
THE CENTRAL VALLEY, SO IN THOSE
COMMUNITIES WHERE WATER IS
CONTAMINATED, RESIDENTS HAVE TO
RELY ON BOTTLED WATER FOR SAFE
DRINKING AND COOKING. SO I CAN
SHARE A QUICK ANECDOTE FROM A
PROGRAM PARTICIPANT THAT THAT
ILLUSTRATES THIS PRETTY
EFFECTIVELY. I THINK. SO, SHE
TOLD US. MY 19 YEAR OLD, WHEN
SHE WAS YOUNG, WE WERE LIVING IN
AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, AND I WAS
MAKING HER FORMULA WITH THE TAP
WATER, AND SHE TESTED FOR LEAD.
SO THEY TOLD ME, IT'S PROBABLY
YOUR TAP WATER. SO WE STOPPED
USING IT AND STARTED USING
BOTTLED WATER. AND THEN SHE WAS
TESTING FINE. SO I SAID, I'M
NEVER TRUSTING TAP WATER AGAIN.
I DON'T TRUST IT IF IT'S UNLESS
IT'S COMING OUT OF A BOTTLE AND
IT'S GOING INTO MY BABY. SO
AGAIN, THIS IS AFFECTING FAR
MORE PEOPLE THAN THE PROGRAM IS
CURRENTLY ABLE TO SERVE. IT'S
SERVING ABOUT 3000 HOUSEHOLDS,
4000 PEOPLE IN KERN COUNTY. THE
PROPOSAL IS JUST TO EXTEND IT
FOR ANOTHER 12 MONTHS SO THAT
THOSE HOUSEHOLDS DON'T SEE WHAT
WOULD AMOUNT TO A $50 PER MONTH
CAP CUT WHEN THEY HAVE TO USE
THAT FUNDING. THAT'S NOT PART OF
THE CALFRESH BENEFIT FORMULA,
RIGHT? THAT ASSUMES THAT YOU
HAVE SAFE TAP WATER. AND SO
WE'RE THE PROPOSAL IS TO EXTEND
IT FOR 12 MONTHS. THAT'S JUST $1
MILLION. AND THEN ALSO TO ASK
CDSS TO PREPARE A PLAN, A
FEASIBLE COST AND FEASIBILITY
STUDY, SO THAT IF FUNDING WERE
AVAILABLE, IT COULD BE EXTENDED
TO OTHER COMMUNITIES SEAMLESSLY,
SO THAT'S REALLY THE PROPOSAL.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
YOU AND, AND THE ADMINISTRATION
TO FIND THE FUNDING. IT IS A
VERY SMALL AMOUNT. IT'S A VERY
MODEST INVESTMENT, AND WE JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THOSE
HOUSEHOLDS AREN'T CUT OFF AND
THAT WE CAN CREATE A PLAN TO
KEEP THE PROGRAM ALIVE AND
IDEALLY EXPAND IT. WE KNOW THE
SOLUTION ISN'T ISN'T THIS IT'S
TO FIX THE BROKEN
INFRASTRUCTURE. BUT IN THE
MEANTIME, THOSE HOUSEHOLDS
SHOULDN'T BE MADE TO SUFFER
MORE. SO I'LL JUST CLOSE WITH
ONE OTHER VERY QUICK QUOTE FROM
A PROGRAM PARTICIPANT. WHEN THE
PROGRAM ENDS, WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO TAKE IT FROM THE BUDGET
BECAUSE FROM SOMEPLACE THE MONEY
HAS TO COME TO BUY WATER. WE
CAN'T DRINK THE TAP WATER. SO
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT. I'M
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR
FOLLOW UP AFTER SINCE I KNOW
IT'S BEEN A LONG HEARING. THANK
YOU. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. LAST
YEAR WE ALLOCATED $3 MILLION FOR
THIS. CAN YOU CAN YOU SHARE WITH
ME HOW THE FUNDS WERE
DISTRIBUTED? AND DO WE KNOW IF
ALL OF IT WAS UTILIZED? YA N N
KHN DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. WE
DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION
READILY AVAILABLE IN FRONT OF
US, BUT HAPPY TO GET WITH YOUR
STAFF TO PROVIDE YOU. YEAH.
RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD EXPIRE IN
JUNE OF 2025, WHICH IS WHY WE
THE TIMING IS VITAL THAT IN THIS
BUDGET YEAR, WE FIND JUST $1
MILLION TO EXTEND IT ANOTHER 12.
SO WE HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING TO
SUPPORT FAMILIES UNTIL NEXT JUNE
OF NEXT 25. YES SO ESSENTIALLY,
COULD WE THEN LOOK AT THIS FOR
THE NEXT? WE WOULD BE HERE. WE
WOULD BE CONCERNED IN TALKING TO
THOSE FAMILIES THAT RIGHT NOW
THEY WOULD BE SCHEDULED TO STILL
GET A NOTICE SAYING IT WOULD BE
DISCONTINUED, AND SO WE'D REALLY
JUST VERY MUCH PREFER TO FIND
THAT SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY.
THERE'S ROOM, BUT THERE'S ROOM
TO STILL HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.
NEXT BUDGET CYCLE FOR FUNDING TO
START IN JULY 1ST OF 2025,
CORRECT? OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE
ANY LÀ OR DO YOU HAVE ANY
COMMENT ON THIS? OKAY
COLLEAGUES, ANYTHING. THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU. IF ANYONE HAS ANY
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE NON-SEXY
ITEMS THAT WE WENT THROUGH AFTER
ISSUES WENT THROUGH FOUR, PLEASE
STEP FORWARD. THIS IS PUBLIC
COMMENT TIME. OKAY BACK AGAIN.
YOU KNOW, I MEAN, MY BIG MOUTH,
THANK YOU. SENATORS AND CHAIR
ANDREW SHANE GRACE AND CHILD
POVERTY CALIFORNIA ON SUMMER ET.
WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THE SKIMMING. AGAIN THIS IS THE
FEDS FAULT, RIGHT? IT'S
OUTRAGEOUS THAT THEY ARE SAYING
THAT THE BENEFITS CANNOT CANNOT
BE REPLACED. WE'RE GOING TO
FIGHT THAT FEDERALLY. IN THE
MEANTIME, OTHER STATES LIKE
MASSACHUSETTS ARE USING STATE
FUNDS TO RESTORE. WE KNOW THAT
THAT'S OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS
YEAR'S BUDGET, BUT IT JUST
SPEAKS TO THE GRAVITY OF THE
SITUATION. AND I WOULD ALSO JUST
SAY THAT WE SHOULD BE THINKING
ABOUT REPLACEMENTS, NOT JUST FOR
SKIMMING, BUT FOR DISASTERS AND
HOUSEHOLD MISFORTUNES, SO WE CAN
FOLLOW UP ABOUT THAT. I WOULD
ALSO SAY THAT THIS PROGRAM IS
NOT ABSORBABLE. THIS IS THE
FIRST NEW FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT IN
A GENERATION THAT I'VE
PERSONALLY HAD THE PLEASURE TO
HELP MAKE HAPPEN, AND WAS LED BY
SENATOR, EXCUSE ME,
CONGRESSWOMAN SUSAN DAVIS FROM
CALIFORNIA. SO THIS HAS BEEN
CALIFORNIA TOP TO BOTTOM, IT'S
THE DEPARTMENT WAS HANDED A VERY
SHORT TIMELINE, AS WAS SPOKEN TO
. AND SO IT WILL TAKE TIME TO
BUILD THAT INFRASTRUCTURE. BUT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF
CHILDREN THAT EITHER NEED TO
FILE A SCHOOL APPLICATION OR AN
ALTERNATIVE INCOME FORM, AS WAS
SPOKEN TO. THAT IS A LOT OF WORK
AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL AND FOR
THE STATE. THANK YOU. ANDREW.
YEP. WE NEED TO JUST CONNECT THE
DOTS WITH SCHOOL MEALS FOR ALL
BECAUSE THOSE APPLICATIONS CAN
HELP ALSO DRIVE MORE
REIMBURSEMENTS AND SAVE MONEY ON
SCHOOL MEALS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS EMERALD EVANS, POLICY
ASSOCIATE ALSO WITH GRACE IN
CHILD POVERTY CALIFORNIA. AND ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CRADLE
TO CAREER COALITION, WE REQUEST
SUPPORT AND THE IT TAKES A
VILLAGE ACT TO BE INCLUDED IN
THE STATE BUDGET FOR CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES IN CALIFORNIA. THE
IT TAKES A VILLAGE ACT WOULD
STRENGTHEN EXISTING AND
ESTABLISHED NEW ANTI
ANTI-POVERTY, PLACE BASED
INITIATIVES FOR FRONTLINE
COMMUNITIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA.
WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO
PROVIDE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES A
PATHWAY OUT OF POVERTY BY
FUNDING CRADLE TO CAREER
ORGANIZATIONS WHO PROVIDE
CRITICAL PROGRAMS AND
COORDINATION TO ENSURE ECONOMIC
MOBILITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
HI. KELLY LONGO FLORES WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FOOD
BANKS. WE WORK ALONGSIDE 41 FOOD
BANKS ACROSS THE STATE WITH A
MISSION TO END HUNGER, AND A
STATE WHERE OVER 1 IN 5
EXPERIENCED FOOD INSECURITY. WE
URGE YOU TO SUPPORT A CRITICAL
ANTI-HUNGER INVESTMENTS,
INCLUDING THE FOOD BANKS REQUEST
FOR BOTH DISASTER FOOD, WHERE
FOOD BANKS CAN REACH OUT TO CDSS
AND FOOD IS IN ROUTE. THE NEXT
DAY, SERVING AS A LIFELINE FOR
FAMILIES IN NEED AND CAL FOOD,
WHICH ALLOWS FOOD BANKS TO
PURCHASE CALIFORNIA GROWN AND
PURCHASED FOOD. WE'RE ALSO HERE
IN SUPPORT OF THE FOLLOWING ON
TIME EMPLOYMENT IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE CAL MINIMUM BENEFIT PILOT
. ENSURING CDSS HAS THE
RESOURCES NEEDED TO MAXIMIZE
SUMMER EBT EXPANDING FOOD FOR
ALL, SUSTAINING THE CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT DISTRIBUTION OF
DIAPERS AND PERIOD PRODUCTS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON
THAT AND HELP TO ENSURE THAT THE
NEW STATEWIDE BENEFITS CAL
WEBSITE IS USER CENTERED AND
CONTINUALLY IMPROVED. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, MARTIN RADOSEVICH ON
BEHALF OF UNITED WAY, CALIFORNIA
CAPITOL REGION, SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF ISSUE NUMBER 12, THE
GUARANTEED INCOME PILOT PROGRAM.
WE ARE A NONPROFIT THAT'S
DEDICATED TO ENDING POVERTY IN
THE SACRAMENTO REGION. WE HAVE
NOW FOUR GUARANTEED INCOME PILOT
PROGRAMS IN THE REGION, AND
WE'RE HAPPY TO BRIEF YOU AND
YOUR STAFF ON THE RESULTS. WE'RE
ALREADY SEEING GREAT BENEFITS TO
ENDING POVERTY AND HELPING
HELPING UNDERSERVED INCOME,
INDIVIDUALS IN THE AREA AS WELL.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE
THE LEGISLATURE TO DO A
STATEWIDE PROGRAM FOLLOWING THIS
PILOT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS HERE. I'M KAREN STOUT ON
BEHALF OF SPUR. I'M SPEAKING ON
ISSUE FIVE, THE CALFRESH
SUPPLEMENTAL FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
PROGRAM. I'M HERE TO URGE YOU TO
KEEP THAT PROGRAM ALIVE. THIS
PROGRAM MAKES HEALTHY FOOD MORE
AFFORDABLE FOR LOW INCOME
CALIFORNIANS BY OFFERING INSTANT
REBATES OF $60 A MONTH DIRECTLY
ONTO THEIR EBT CARDS, WHICH THEY
CAN THEN USE TO BUY FRESH FRUITS
AND VEGETABLES FOR THEIR
CALFRESH BENEFITS. THE PROGRAM
LAUNCHED LAST YEAR, IT'S NOW
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE AT OVER 90
GROCERY STORES AND FARMERS
MARKETS STATEWIDE, AND THIS IS
SUPPORTING MORE THAN 50,000
CALFRESH HOUSEHOLDS, WHICH
REPRESENT MORE THAN 80,000
PEOPLE. THEY ARE RECEIVING 2.5
MILLION EACH MONTH FOR THIS
PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN
INCREDIBLY POPULAR AND
SUCCESSFUL, AND IN FACT, SO
SUCCESSFUL THAT IT'S RUNNING OUT
OF FUNDS, WHICH MEANS THAT CDSS
WILL BE FORCED TO SHUT IT OFF
THIS WEEKEND. SENATOR DODD,
ALONG WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER LEE,
HAVE SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR 30
MILLION TO KEEP THE PILOT GOING
FOR 12 MORE MONTHS AT ITS
CURRENT SCALE, AT A TIME OF
TIGHT BUDGETS. WE KNOW THAT THIS
COULD BE AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM
BECAUSE IT'S EXCEPTIONALLY
EFFICIENT. 99% OF THAT 30
MILLION IS GOING DIRECTLY BACK
INTO PEOPLE'S POCKETS, HELPING
FAMILIES AND PEOPLE PUT FOOD ON
THE TABLE. WE ENCOURAGE THE WE
WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COMMITTEE TO
CONTINUE TO FUND THIS PROGRAM,
WHICH REDUCES HUNGER, IMPROVES
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SUPPORTS
CALIFORNIA'S AGRICULTURAL
ECONOMY. I URGE YOU TO KEEP IT
GOING SO THAT THOSE 80,000
CALIFORNIANS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. JOSH
GALLAGHER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF DIAPER
BANKS, WE WANT TO CALL TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
THAT THE FUNDING FOR DIAPER
BANKS IS EXPIRING ON JUNE 30TH
OF THIS FISCAL YEAR. FIVE YEARS
AGO, IN THE FACE OF INCREASING
COST OF LIVING FOR LOW INCOME
PARENTS AND THE DIRE IMPACT THAT
POVERTY IS HAVING ON CHILDREN,
THE LEGISLATURE PROVIDED LIMITED
TIME FUNDING FOR DIAPER BANKS.
WHILE THE FUNDING WAS LIMITED.
TÂM. IT WAS CERTAINLY THE HOPE
AND EXPECTATION OF THE
LEGISLATORS THAT THE FUNDING
WOULD BECOME PERMANENT FOR THIS
PROGRAM. THE NETWORK OF EIGHT
DIAPER BANKS, MANY OF WHICH ARE
OPERATED AS PART OF FOOD BANKS,
HAVE PROVIDED OVER A 160 MILLION
DIAPERS OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS
WITHOUT CONTINUED FUNDING. MANY
OF THE DIAPER BANKS WILL CEASE
OPERATIONS. LOW INCOME FAMILIES
WILL BE FORCED TO RETURN TO
MAKING DIFFICULT DECISIONS ABOUT
FOOD, TRANSPORTATION, CHILD CARE
AND THE HEALTH OF THEIR INFANTS
AND TODDLERS. IF THEY CANNOT
ACCESS THESE FREE DIAPERS, WE
URGE THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO
CONSIDER EXTENDING FUNDING FOR
THIS PROGRAM. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU ONCE AGAIN, MADAM CHAIR.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS ESTHER
PAMINTUAN WITH ALAMEDA COUNTY
COMMUNITY FOOD BANK. WE WOULD
LIKE TO RECORD OUR STRONG
SUPPORT FOR ALL THE PRIORITIES
THAT CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
FOOD BANKS OUTLINED. IN
PARTICULAR, I WANTED TO
EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF CAL
FOOD IN ALAMEDA COUNTY. RIGHT
NOW, AROUND 1 IN 4 RESIDENTS ARE
EITHER EXPERIENCING FOOD
INSECURITY OR AT RISK OF
EXPERIENCING FOOD INSECURITY.
AND WE'RE DISTRIBUTING ABOUT 1
MILLION POUNDS OF MEALS PER WEEK
IN ORDER TO MEET THIS NEED. SO
CAL FOOD IS CRITICAL IN ORDER TO
FULFILL OUR MISSION. AND THEN
FINALLY, REAL QUICK, I WANT TO
UNDERLINE THE IMPORTANCE OF FOOD
FOR ALL, BECAUSE A LARGE
PROPORTION OF THE COMMUNITY WE
SERVE ARE IMMIGRANTS. SO IT'S
CRITICAL THAT WE EXPAND CFAP
BENEFITS TO ALL, REGARDLESS OF
IMMIGRATION STATUS OR AGE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
KEVIN BUFALINO WITH SACRAMENTO
FOOD BANK AND FAMILY SERVICES,
WE'VE BEEN AROUND FOR 48 YEARS.
WE ARE CURRENTLY FEEDING MORE
PEOPLE THAN EVER BEFORE, WE'RE
UP TO 300,000 PEOPLE EVERY
MONTH, WHICH IS UP FROM 150,000
IN JUST 2019. SO ECHO MY
COLLEAGUES IN FOOD BANKING,
PLEASE CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR
DISASTER FOOD AND CAL FOOD, ON
TIME IMPLEMENTATION OF CALFRESH
MINIMUM NUTRITION BENEFIT. ADMIN
NEEDS FOR SUMMER EBT AND
EXPANDING FOOD FOR ALL TO ALL
AGES. WE'RE ALSO A MEMBER OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF DIAPER
BANKS, ONE OF THE EIGHT STATE
FUNDED DIAPER BANKS. LAST YEAR
WE GAVE AWAY 8 TO 8.2 MILLION
DIAPERS, SUPPORTS HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES. THAT
FUNDING WILL CEASE ON JULY JUNE
30TH IF WE DON'T GET, ADDITIONAL
FUNDING FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR,
THAT PROGRAM WILL NEED TO CLOSE.
AND THOSE FAMILIES THAT WE'RE
SERVING WILL THEN NEED TO MAKE
THOSE DIFFICULT DECISIONS
BETWEEN SPENDING 80 TO $100 A
MONTH ON DIAPERS, AND HAVING TO
PULL THAT BUDGET FROM OTHER
PLACES. SO AS YOU'RE CONSIDERING
OTHER CGRTS CUTS AND PROGRAM
CUTS, PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
REBECCA GONZALEZ WITH WESTERN
CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY, WE
SUPPORT THE, THE POLICIES PUT
FORTH BY THE END, CHILD POVERTY
COALITION ENSURE ON TIME
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALFRESH
MINIMUM NUTRITION BENEFIT PILOT
EXPAND FOOD FOR ALL TO ALL
CALIFORNIANS. ENSURE THE NEW
BENEFITS. CAL WEBSITE IS USER
CENTERED AND CONTINUOUSLY
IMPROVED. ENSURE CDSS AND CDE
HAVE THE RESOURCES TO FULFILL
THE MANDATE TO MAXIMIZE SUMMER
EBT SUPPORT. K¾T CDS'S REQUEST
TO EXTEND THEIR GUARANTEED
INCOME PILOT PROGRAM AUTHORITY
THROUGH 2028. FUND AB 2263 FOR
GUARANTEED INCOME PILOT AND
FUNDED TAKES A VILLAGE PROVEN
PLACE BASED ANTI-POVERTY
PARTNERSHIP STATEWIDE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, REBECCA. HI.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MICHAEL FLOOD,
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK
AND WANT TO ALSO REINFORCE SOME
OF MY FOOD BANK COLLEAGUES AND
SPEAKING ON SOME OF THE ISSUES
THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY, CAL
FOOD WHICH IS A NON PRESENTATION
ITEM, IN ADDITION TO FEEDING
PEOPLE, IT'S GREAT FOR
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE. WE'RE
ACCESSING CALIFORNIA FRESH
PRODUCE GROWN THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. THIS IS A STATE PROGRAM,
BENEFITING STATE AGRICULTURE.
AND THIS PRODUCE GETS TO PLACES
THAT DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO
PRODUCE. SO IT'S A VERY
IMPORTANT PROGRAM. AND WE REALLY
ENCOURAGE THE COMMITTEE TO LOOK
AT THIS SERIOUSLY. WE'RE ALSO A
DIAPER BANK. WE'VE DISTRIBUTED
MILLIONS OF DIAPERS IN THE FIVE
YEARS WE'VE BEEN RUNNING THE
PROGRAM. AND AS YOU'VE HEARD,
THAT PROGRAM WILL BE ENDING ON
JUNE 30TH. SO THAT WILL IMPACT A
LOT OF INFANTS AND BABIES
THROUGHOUT LOS ANGELES COUNTY
AND THROUGHOUT THE AREA. AND
THEN WE'RE ALSO SO ONE OF THE
TWO FOOD BANKS, SAN DIEGO AND
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK,
THAT RECEIVED SOME FUNDING FROM
MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS PROGRAM AND
THAT ALSO THAT FUNDING IS ALSO
ENDING IN JUNE. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON
AGAIN, CHAIR AND SENATOR ROTH,
JARED KAUL FROM NOURISH
CALIFORNIA. AGAIN, I JUST WANT
TO COMMENT IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
ALL OF THE PROPOSALS FOR
INVESTMENT AND PARTICULARLY FOOD
FOR ALL AND THE FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE EBT PILOT PROJECT. I
ALSO WANT TO COMMENT ON BEHALF
OF OUR CO-SPONSORS OF FOOD FOR
ALL, THE CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT
POLICY CENTER IN SUPPORT OF CFAP
EXPANSION. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
SEE NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT. THAT
CONCLUDES OUR SECTION. AND WITH
THAT BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE NUMBER
THREE AND HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, IT HAS CONCLUDED