WELCOME TO OUR LAST HEARING
BEFORE MAY. REVISE. TODAY SHOULD
BE SUPER QUICK. BLINK OF AN EYE.
WE WILL BE OUT OF HERE, WE ARE
JUST DOING A HEARING FOR FOLLOW
UP ISSUES THAT WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT THROUGHOUT THE PAST COUPLE
OF WEEKS. I APPRECIATE THE
DEPARTMENTS THAT PROVIDED SOME
FOLLOW UP VIA EMAIL, WHICH IS
WHY WE ARE GOING TO BE REMOVING
ISSUE NUMBER TWO ON THE UPDATE
OF TRANSFER OF SOME GRANTS OVER
TO OCR, AND WE WILL JUST BE
DOING ISSUE ONE, THREE AND FOUR.
I WILL NOW ASK OCR TO COME ON
UP. WE WILL START WITH
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES AGENCY ON OCR AND THE
DATA. ON CITF TF DATA UPDATE.
WELCOME, ELIO. DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. GOOD MORNING. MAY I
BEGIN? GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR
, I DID WANT TO NOTE THAT WITH
ME TODAY IS CHRISTIAN LUCAS. HE
IS A RESEARCH. AND DATA TWO WITH
OUR OFFICE OCR. AND HE'LL BE
HELPING ME TODAY WITH THE
PRESENTATION. I'D LIKE TO BEGIN
BY THANKING OUR LEGISLATIVE
PARTNERS FOR THEIR TREMENDOUS
SUPPORT IN THE DATA ASSOCIATED
WITH AB 102. WE ALSO THANK OUR
COUNTY PROBATION PARTNERS FOR
THE DATA SUBMISSIONS, AND LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP
WITH THEM AS WE ALL MOVE TOWARDS
A SHARED VISION IN THIS JUVENILE
JUSTICE SPACE. WE ARE EXCITED TO
PRESENT THIS FIRST INAUGURAL
REPORT OF AB 102 DATA. BY
STATUTE, COUNTIES REPORTED THE
DATA TO OCR FOR FISCAL YEARS 21
AND 22 AND FISCAL YEARS 2223. WE
LOOK FORWARD TO ONE ADDITIONAL
YEAR OF REPORTING PER STATUTE
THAT WILL INCLUDE FISCAL YEAR
2324 INFORMATION. HERE ARE THE
GOALS OF THE REPORT AND WHAT OUR
TEAM STRIVES TO DO WITH THE
ANALYSIS. ONE PROVIDE STATEWIDE
SNAPSHOT OF DATA ON THE PROGRESS
OF SB 823 REALIGNMENT TWO.
UNDERSTAND WHO'S BEING SENT TO
SECURE YOUTH TREATMENT
FACILITIES, ALSO CALLED SITS
THREE. OPINE ON THE PRESENCE OF
STATEWIDE NET WIDENING AND FOUR
PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON WHERE WE SEE
PROGRESS AND WHERE WE SEE AREAS
OF CONCERN. SLIDE THREE. WE
BEGIN TO LOOK AT SOME
LIMITATIONS OVER ARCHING
LIMITATIONS IN FOUR SPECIFIC
AREAS. AB 102 DATA IS REPORTED
ON A FISCAL YEAR, WHICH LIMITS
THE ABILITY TO COMPARE OTHER
SYSTEMS THAT ARE BASED ON OTHER
REPORTING CYCLES. THIS INAUGURAL
ROUND OF DATA COLLECTION ONLY
INCLUDES TWO FISCAL YEARS, SO WE
CANNOT REALLY RUN LONGITUDINAL
DETERMINATION TRENDS. WE HAVE
SOME COMPARISONS WITH DATA, BUT
OFTEN THEIR DATA IS IT IS
REPORTED ON THE CALENDAR YEAR
AND WE'RE ON THE FISCAL YEAR. SO
THAT IS THE BEST DATA WE HAVE.
BUT IT'S NOT APPLES TO APPLES.
THERE'S A DE-IDENTIFIED VERSION
LIMITATION OCR IS PART OF THE
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENCY,
WHICH HAS STRICT DATA
DE-IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES
WHEN RELEASING PUBLIC DATA. THIS
WILL COME INTO PLAY A LOT WITH
THE AB 102 DATA. MANY COUNTIES
HAVE VERY LOW NUMBERS TO REPORT,
WHICH PRESENTS CHALLENGES IN THE
ANALYSIS. WE CANNOT SHARE DATA
COUNTS LESS THAN 12. THERE'S A
NET WIDENING ANALYSIS LIMITATION
AS WELL. NET WIDENING OCCURS IF
MORE YOUTH ARE INCARCERATED IN
THE CITF THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN
INCARCERATED AT JPS PRIOR TO
CLOSURE. AGAIN, THE REPORTING
CYCLE FOR JPS WAS ON A CALENDAR
YEAR, AND AB 102 IS A FISCAL
YEAR. THIS PRESENTS CHALLENGES
FOR DETERMINING NET WIDENING
SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE AN EXACT
TIME FRAME FOR COMPARISON.
HOWEVER, COMPARING JPS
COMMITMENTS TO CITF COMMITMENTS
IS STILL OUR BEST MEASURE TO
DETERMINE IF THERE IS NET
WIDENING OCCURRING AND WHAT THE
ROLE OF CITF AND OTHER SYSTEM
PARTNERS PLAY IN THAT IT SHOULD
ALSO BE FLAGGED THAT COVID 19
PANDEMIC AND ASSOCIATED
DE-POPULATION OF FACILITIES
IMPACTS THE SPECIFIC ANALYSIS
AND THE TRENDS SIGNIFICANTLY,
AND LASTLY, WITH REGARD TO THE
DATA DISPARITY GAP ANALYSIS THAT
TELLS US THE RELATIVE LIKELIHOOD
OF A PARTICULARLY OUTCOME TO
EACH AB 102 DATA POINT FOR YOUTH
OF COLOR, COMPARED TO WHITE
YOUTH FOR THIS ANALYSIS, THE
REPORTING PERIOD ALSO PRESENTS A
LIMITATION DUE TO THE
CALCULATION PROCEDURE. COUNTY
LEVEL ANALYSIS IS LIMITED DUE TO
COUNTIES WHICH ONLY HAD WHITE
YOUTH, AND COUNTIES WHICH HAD NO
WHITE YOUTH IN THEIR AB 102.
REPORTING FURTHER, SOME COUNTY
LEVEL COUNTS ARE SO SMALL THAT
IT CREATED VERY LARGE RATES THAT
ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE. SLIDE
FOUR. TAKEAWAY FINDINGS ARE ONE.
THE OVERREPRESENTATION OF BLACK
YOUTH STATEWIDE, AS WE HAVE SEEN
ACROSS THE NATION FOR DECADES,
BLACK AND BROWN YOUTH ARE
OVERREPRESENTED IN THE JUVENILE
JUSTICE SYSTEM. THIS IS FLAGGED
AS SOMETHING WE NEED TO WORK ON
AND IMPROVE STATEWIDE. WE WILL
REVIEW BRIEF DATA THAT
DEMONSTRATES THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE
FOUND THAT THERE IS NO STATEWIDE
NET WIDENING. ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT FINDINGS THAT THAT WE
HAVE HAVE SINCE THE JPS CLOSURE
AND, AND IT IS SIGNIFICANT, THIS
IS VERY POSITIVE. THERE WAS A
FEAR THAT THE CLOSURE OF JPS
WOULD UNINTENTIONALLY RESULT IN
COUNTIES INCARCERATING MORE
YOUTH WITHIN THE CITF. THE DATA
IS SHOWING US THAT CITF
COMMITMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2223
ARE 18% LOWER THAN THE DOJ
COMMITMENTS IN 2019. OVERALL,
LESS YOUTH ARE BEING
INCARCERATED SINCE THE
ADMINISTRATION CLOSED THE
STATEWIDE YOUTH PRISON SYSTEM.
ANOTHER TAKEAWAY IS THE
INCREASED USE OF LESS
RESTRICTIVE PROGRAMS. THIS DATA
SHOWS THAT JUDGES AND PROBATION
DEPARTMENTS ARE STEPPING YOUTH
OUT OF RESTRICTIVE SETTINGS, THE
HIGHEST RESTRICTIVE SETTING,
INTO LESS RESTRICTIVE SETTINGS
TO COMPLETE THEIR BASELINE
COMMITMENTS. ANOTHER TAKEAWAY IS
THAT SITES ARE BEING USED FOR
THE MOST SERIOUS CRIMES. THE
DATA SHOWS US THAT YOUTH ARE
BEING KEPT IN THE JUVENILE
JUSTICE SYSTEM, EVEN FOR VERY
SERIOUS CRIMES, RATHER THAN
BEING SENT TO ADULT COURT FOR
PROSECUTION. THIS IS
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE AND
SUPPORTED BY THE VALUES OF OUR
AGENCY. IN ADDITION TO BEING A
PUBLIC SAFETY BEST PRACTICE. AND
LASTLY, DATA TRANSPARENCY
REPORTS LIKE THIS INCREASE DATA
TRANSPARENCY AND DATA DRIVEN
POLICY MAKING. ANOTHER KEY VALUE
OF OIC AND HHS. SLIDE FIVE IS A
OVERVIEW OF THE
OVERREPRESENTATION OF BLACK AND
BROWN YOUTH. BLACK YOUTH AGED 14
TO 25 ONLY MAKE UP 5% OF THE
CALIFORNIA POPULATION IN
CALENDAR YEAR 2122, BUT MADE UP
30% AND 25% OF THE POPULATION IN
THE SITES. IN 21, 22 AND 2223
RESPECTIVELY. LATINO YOUTH AGED
14 TO 25 MADE UP 50% OF THE
STATE'S POPULATION IN CALENDAR
YEAR 2021 AND IN FISCAL YEAR
2122 AND FISCAL YEAR 2223.
LATINOS MADE UP A LITTLE OVER
60% OF THE CITF POPULATION. THE
DATA FROM AB 102 SHOWS
PERSISTENCE OF RACIAL
DISPARITIES AND THE
OVERREPRESENTATION OF YOUTH OF
COLOR. IN SLIDE SIX, THERE IS A
MORE OF A DRILL DOWN WITH
SPECIFIC COUNTIES AS YOU CAN
SEE, THE DISPARITIES PERSIST.
AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY, PLACER
COUNTY, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, AND
SHASTA COUNTY, I'LL REMIND YOU
THAT THIS DATA SHOULD BE
INTERPRETED WITH CAUTION. SOME
COUNTY LEVELS ARE SO SMALL,
FEWER THAN 12 THAT IT CREATED A
VERY LARGE RATE THAT MAY NOT BE
WHOLLY REPRESENTATIVE. WE DO NOT
REPORT ASIAN AMERICAN AND
PACIFIC ISLANDER AND NATIVE
YOUTH FOR THIS SAME REASON,
BECAUSE THE FREQUENCY COUNTS ARE
SO LOW AND THE PERCENTAGES WOULD
NOT BE REPRESENTATIVE. BUT
NONETHELESS, IT IS CLEAR THAT
ACROSS THE STATE, MORE NEEDS TO
BE DONE TO REVERSE THE TREND FOR
BLACK AND BROWN YOUTH. SLIDE
SEVEN SHOWS THE STATEWIDE NET
STATEWIDE NET WIDENING. THE AB
102 REPORT INCLUDES THIS
ANALYSIS. OIC ARE EXAMINED THE
TOTAL DEEGE COMMITMENTS BY
CALENDAR YEAR FROM 2017 THROUGH
2021, AND THEN COMPARED THE AB
102 CITF COMMITMENT DATA BY
FISCAL YEAR. AND AS YOU CAN SEE
IN THIS CHART FROM 2019 TO 2021,
COMMITMENTS DECREASED. A CHANGE
DRIVEN BY STATEWIDE CARCERAL
POPULATION DUE TO COVID 19
PANDEMIC. PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC,
DJ COMMITMENTS WERE TRENDING UP,
SO THE CITF COMMITMENT UPTICK
BETWEEN THE TWO FISCAL YEARS
SUGGESTS A BIT OF A
POST-PANDEMIC REBOUND AND WE
COULD WE SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED TO
SEE THAT EVEN WITH THE INCREASE
IN CITF COMMITMENTS BETWEEN
FISCAL YEAR 21 AND 22 AND FISCAL
YEAR 2223, WE CAN SEE THAT
FISCAL YEAR 2122 COMMITMENTS ARE
STILL 29% LOWER THAN 2019
PRE-PANDEMIC. PRE SB 823
COMMITMENTS. SIMILARLY, IN
FISCAL YEAR 22, 23 CITF
COMMITMENTS ARE 14% LOWER THAN
2019 COMMITMENTS. OVERALL, THE
DATA DOES NOT SHOW EVIDENCE OF A
NET NET WIDENING THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. HOWEVER, AS OICER HAS
FLAGGED SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FOR NET WIDENING DUE TO A 43%
INCREASE BETWEEN THE TOTAL DJ
COMMITMENTS IN 2021 AND THE
TOTAL CITF COMMITMENTS IN FISCAL
YEAR 2122, AS WELL AS 55% CITF
COMMITMENT INCREASE FROM FISCAL
YEAR 2122 AND FISCAL YEAR 2223.
A TOTAL OF 23 YOUTH WERE
COMMITTED TO DJ IN 2021. IN IN
FISCAL YEAR 2122, 33 YOUTH WERE
COMMITTED TO THE CITF AND WE
ALSO SEE ANOTHER INCREASE IN
CITF COMMITMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR
2223 TO 51, OCHER HAS REACHED
OUT TO THE SAN BERNARDINO
PROBATION DEPARTMENT ABOUT THESE
FINDINGS TO HELP HYPOTHESIZE AS
TO WHAT MIGHT BE HAPPENING, AND
HELP OFFER HELP AND SUPPORT TO
CURB THE TREND. IN A DEEPER
ANALYSIS, OIC ARE HYPOTHESIZES
THAT THESE INCREASES ARE
ACTUALLY DUE TO SYSTEMIC ISSUES
WITHIN THE COUNTY COURT SYSTEM,
POTENTIALLY RELATED TO TRANSFER
HEARINGS. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
FILE MOTIONS TO SEND YOUTH TO
THE ADULT COURT IN LIEU OF
CONSIDERING THEM FOR JUVENILE
COURT DISPOSITION. AND IN SAN
BERNARDINO, 2223, WE SAW 157%
INCREASE IN TRANSFER HEARINGS
ORDERED, INCREASING THE 23, THE
PREVIOUS YEAR TO 59. FURTHER
EXPLORATION IS NECESSARY TO
DETERMINE OTHER FACTORS
CONTRIBUTING TO THESE INCREASES
AND IN FACT, IF NET WIDENING IS
ACTUALLY OCCURRING. IN SLIDE
NINE, WE LOOK AT THE USE OF LESS
RESTRICTIVE PLACEMENTS OR
PROGRAMS, LOOKING AT THAT
NUMBER, THIS SHOWS THAT WE
STARTED THE PROCESS IN FISCAL
YEAR 2122. AS YOU RECALL, JUDGES
WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SEND KIDS
ANY LONGER TO DJ IN JULY OF
2021. THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF
MOMENTUM YET WITH THE LRP USE IN
THAT FIRST YEAR. LESS THAN 12.
HOWEVER WHAT WE SEE IN THE NEXT
YEAR IS THAT THERE WAS A
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE USE
OF LESS RESTRICTIVE PROGRAMS.
WE'RE SEEING THAT THE FOLLOWING
YEAR, THERE WERE 100 YOUTHS
TRANSFERRED TO LESS RESTRICTIVE
PROGRAMS. WE HOPE IN THE FUTURE
TO SEE THIS NUMBER GROW. OIC IS
OFFERING FUNDING, OPPORTUNITIES,
OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE THE
VISIBILITY AND EASE BY WHICH WE
CAN MOVE YOUTH INTO LPS. WE'RE
ACTUALLY FUNDING TEN COUNTIES IN
HELPING THEM SET UP LESS
RESTRICTIVE PROGRAMS. WE'RE ALSO
WORKING WITH CEPAC TO KEEP A
RUNNING LIST OF LESS RESTRICTIVE
PROGRAMS IN THE COUNTIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. IN SLIDE
TEN, WE SEE THAT THIS CHART
DETAILS THE COUNT OF OFFENSE
OFFENSE FOR YOUTH COMMITTED TO
THE CITY IN FISCAL YEAR 2122 AND
FISCAL YEAR 2223. ASSAULT,
HOMICIDE, AND ROBBERY WERE THE
OFFENSES MOST PREVALENT FOR THIS
POPULATION IN. THIS DATA SHOWS A
WILLINGNESS TO KEEP YOUTH WHO
HAVE COMMITTED THE MOST SERIOUS
OFFENSES, SUCH AS HOMICIDE IN
THE JUVENILE SYSTEM, WHICH IS
CONSISTENT WITH YOUTH
DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY SAFETY
. IN SLIDE 11, THE REALIGNMENT
OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE CREATED
BY SB. WELL, THIS IS THE CLOSING
, CREATED BY SB 823 IS WELL
UNDERWAY AS YOU CAN SEE, THE
DATA FROM THE REPORT SHOWS THE
PERSISTENCE OF RACIAL
DISPARITIES AND THE
OVERREPRESENTATION OF BLACK AND
BROWN YOUTH WITHIN OUR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM, SIMILAR TO
TRENDS ACROSS THE NATION, A NET
WIDENING WILL NEED TO BE
MONITORED AS THE PROCESS OF
REALIGNMENT CONTINUES, AND WE
WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH ALL OUR
JUVENILE JUSTICE STAKEHOLDERS TO
ADDRESS BOTH OF THESE ISSUES.
THE AB 102 DATA ALSO EXPOSES
GREAT PROMISE. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE
A SMALL NUMBER OF COUNTIES THAT
WE WILL CONTINUE TO EXPLORE
SOLUTIONS, IT IS PROMISING TO
SEE THAT NET WIDENING IS NOT A
STATEWIDE TREND AND DATA ALSO
SHOWS A DEMONSTRABLE WILLINGNESS
TO KEEP KIDS LOCAL. WE AGAIN SAW
THE INCREASE IN STEPPING KIDS TO
LESS RESTRICTIVE PROGRAMS. THANK
YOU AGAIN TO OUR LEGISLATIVE
PARTNERS FOR THEIR COMMITMENT TO
DATA TRANSPARENCY WITHIN THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM. OIC.
OUR CONTINUES TO PROVIDE DATA
DRIVEN POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO WORK
HAND IN HAND WITH PROBATION AND
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS FOR THE
BETTERMENT OF OUR YOUTH, OUR
FAMILIES AND OUR COMMUNITIES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH LÀ. ANY
COMMENT? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
ORLANDO SANCHEZ WITH THE LAO, WE
HAVE NO GENERAL COMMENTS ON
THIS, BUT HAPPY TO TAKE ANY
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. AND I'M HERE
WITH MY COLLEAGUE AS WELL. THANK
YOU. MIXED IT UP, JOSEPH
DONALDSON, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, OKAY, LET'S JUMP INTO SOME
SOME QUESTIONS. I'M REALLY
EXCITED TO SEE THAT THERE IS NO,
WHAT? WE DON'T SEE A STATE WIDE
NET WIDENING THAT'S REALLY
PROMISING TO SEE THAT. AND I'M
GLAD THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE
CHECKING IN. AND YOU'VE PROVIDED
SOME TO THE SAN BERNARDINO TO
FIND HOPEFULLY A SOLUTION TO
ADDRESS THAT TREND THAT WE SEE
THERE, IN, IN REGARDING TO AND I
THINK YOU'RE 100% RIGHT IN HOW
IT'S NOT APPLES TO APPLES
BECAUSE THE DATA WE'RE GETTING
IS FROM A FISCAL YEAR VERSUS THE
CALENDAR YEAR. AND I THINK WE
SHOULD ADDRESS THAT AND JUST
MATCH IT SO THAT WE GET DATA ON
THE CALENDAR YEAR. SO IT'S
EASIER TO, FOR GREATER
TRANSPARENCY. RIGHT. SO THAT'S I
THINK THAT'S AN EASY PART ON OUR
END. BUT I'M WONDERING, THERE'S
A LOT OF DATA THAT IS REPORTED
TO BACK ON A MORE FREQUENT
BASIS. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THEIR
DETENTION PROFILE THEY GET LIKE
MONTHLY OR QUARTER UPDATES IF
WE'RE LOOKING TO HOPEFULLY DO
SOME COURSE CORRECTION. IF WE DO
SEE A TREND THAT, IS WORRISOME,
WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER TO DO
COURSE CORRECTION, SOONER RATHER
THAN LATER? AND I'M WONDERING,
IF YOU'VE WE'VE HAD
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT COLLECTING
THIS DATA ON A MORE FREQUENT
BASIS. SO, SENATOR, I THINK WHAT
I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS THAT
THERE IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA
THAT IS COLLECTED BY BSC AND ARE
YOU ASKING IF OIC INTENDS TO USE
THAT IN THEIR ANALYSIS? NO. SO
WE KNOW THAT COUNTIES ALREADY
HAVE TO SEND ADDITIONAL DATA TO
BSC ON A MORE FREQUENT BASIS.
THIS THIS COLLECTION IS A MORE
ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. YES. AND
SOMETIMES THE COURSE CORRECTION
MAY COME TOO LATE BECAUSE WE GET
WE SEE TRENDS 12 MONTHS INTO A
TREND, WHEREAS IF WE COLLECTED
THIS DATA IT'D BE 1 OR 2 DATA ON
A MORE FREQUENT BASIS THAT ARE
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OR COURSE
CORRECTION CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A
LITTLE BIT MORE VALUE, BECAUSE
WE CAN COURSE CORRECT SOONER
RATHER THAN LATER. SO I'M
WONDERING IF WE'RE LOOKING INTO
MATCHING THE FREQUENCY THAT
COUNTIES REPORTED BACK TO HOW
FREQUENT THAT REPORT TO OIC ARE,
WELL, I THINK ANYBODY WHO IS IN
THE WORK OF DATA TRANSPARENCY
AND, SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT WOULD
AGREE THAT FREQUENT REGULAR
QUALITY DATA IS CRITICAL FOR
COURSE CORRECTION. GETTING IT
ANNUALLY IS A KIND OF A LOOK,
LOOK, LOOK AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED
VERSUS BEING ABLE TO GO AHEAD
AND BEGIN TO DRIVE CORRECTIONS,
IN A IN A WAY THAT IS A SYSTEMS
CORRECTION KIND OF MID, MID AND
FLYING THE PLANE OR BUILDING THE
PLANE WHILE WE'RE FLYING IT
MORE, A SCENARIO. SO AGAIN, I
THINK WE'RE VERY PLEASED WITH
BEING ABLE TO RECEIVE THE AB 102
DATA, AND WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT IT,
AT SOME POINT THAT WE CAN HAVE
MORE FREQUENT QUALITY DATA
COMING FROM THE COUNTIES. OKAY.
DO THE COUNTIES COLLECT
RECIDIVISM DATA? MY
UNDERSTANDING FROM THE COUNTY,
JJ, RPG PLANS AND I DO HAVE MY
DATA. GURU. YEAH. PERSON HERE.
IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT.
CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION,
CHRISTIAN? YEAH, THERE WE GO, IT
IS NOT REQUIRED THROUGH JJ, RPG,
THROUGH RECIDIVISM. I KNOW THAT
SOME OTHER FORMS OF REPORTING,
IT'S INCLUDED BASED ON THE
COUNTY CHOOSING TO INCLUDE IT,
BUT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT
THROUGH GRANTS OR REPORTING THAT
I HAVE SEEN WHERE IT IS
DEFINITIVE, LIKE RECIDIVISM
NEEDS TO BE REPORTED BASED ON
THIS TIME FRAME, BASED ON THESE
REQUIREMENTS AND IN A CERTAIN
FORMAT. BUT DO YOU KNOW IF THE
COUNTIES ON THEIR OWN ARE
COLLECTING THIS DATA FOR SOME,
PERHAPS SOMETHING ELSE? I
BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE? I'VE
HEARD SOME COUNTY MEETINGS TALK
ABOUT THAT BEING A REPORT OUT
FROM PROBATION TO COURTS OR FROM
PROBATION TO JUVENILE JUSTICE
COORDINATING COMMITTEES. AND SO
I BELIEVE IT IS A CIRCULATION
WITHIN LIKE ADMINISTRATIVELY TO
DO DAILY CHECKS, BUT NOT
REPORTING OUT TO DIFFERENT
COMMITTEES OR OTHER, AVENUES
LIKE THAT. IT'S ALSO MY
UNDERSTANDING FROM MEETING WITH
EACH OF THE COUNTIES THAT THAT
IS A ONE OF THE DATA POINTS THAT
THEY ALL AGREE IS ESSENTIAL. AND
IN, ASPIRE TO COLLECT. OKAY.
WOULD YOU, CHRISTIAN DIRECTOR,
IS THERE ANY OTHER DATA POINT DO
YOU THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR
US TO COLLECT? WELL, I THINK IN
THIS IN THE SPIRIT OF COURSE
CORRECTING I THINK COMPREHEND
LIVE SYSTEM, MILESTONE DATA
POINTS IS IMPORTANT. FOR
EXAMPLE, HOW MANY KIDS ARE
DETAINED? HOW MANY KIDS ARE
RELEASED AT THE FIRST HEARING,
WHAT IS THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF
STAY, WHAT IS THE RECIDIVISM,
DATA I IT'S AGAIN, JUST LOOKING
AT KIND OF THE BACK END DATA. IT
DOESN'T REALLY HELP US DO THAT
THOROUGH OVERARCHING POLICY,
AROUND DIVERSION, AROUND
PREVENTION. YOU KNOW, HOW MANY
MISDEMEANORS ARE ARE BEING
DETAINED, HOW MANY VIOLATIONS OF
PROBATION. SO THERE'S A LOT OF
DATA POINTS THAT WOULD HELP.
ACTUALLY DRIVE A POLICY IF THOSE
WERE TO BE, COLLECTED. AND I DO
KNOW THAT WHEN I WAS IN SANTA
CLARA COUNTY, WE DID COLLECT ALL
OF THAT DATA AND PUBLISHED AN
ANNUAL REPORT. WE DO LOOK AT ALL
THE COUNTY ANNUAL REPORTS, OUR,
COUNTY COORDINATION UNIT HAS
KEEPS A RUNNING TAB ON WHICH
COUNTIES PUBLISH THIS
INFORMATION ON THEIR OWN. SO
THERE ARE COUNTIES THAT ARE
ALREADY COLLECTING THIS DATA.
THANK YOU, IN REGARDS TO THE
LESS RESTRICTIVE PLACEMENT 100,
THAT'S A BIG JUMP. IT'S
PHENOMENAL. BUT NOT ALL LPS ARE
CREATED EQUALLY. AND EACH COUNTY
IS DEFINING LPS IN A DIFFERENT
WAY, YOUR THOUGHTS, DIRECTOR, ON
HAVING A BETTER BREAKDOWN OF LPS
BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST, YOU
KNOW, I ALWAYS SPEAK ABOUT WHAT
WHAT'S IN MY BACKYARD. SO KWAME
KILPATRICK IS CONSIDERED LRP,
BUT IT'S STILL AN S S T CITF BUT
IT'S AN LRP, SO IT'S BEING ADDED
TO THAT, DATA. SO ARE WE LOOKING
AT POTENTIALLY HAVING THAT
ACTUAL BREAKDOWN SO WE CAN HAVE
A REALLY BETTER UNDERSTANDING,
LIKE ARE THESE HOMES AND
COMMUNITIES OR ARE THESE STILL
PROGRAMS RUN BY PROBATION OR. I
MEAN, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE,
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? YEAH,
I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S THE IDEAL
TO UNDERSTAND, WHERE EXACTLY THE
CONTINUUM OF CARE, IS, IS
LANDING FOR THE KIDS. AND THIS
IS A CONTINUUM OF CARE, WE HAVE
A VERY HIGH RESTRICTIVE SETTINGS
IN THE JUVENILE DETENTION
CENTERS. AND THEN CAMPS AND
RANCHES THAT ARE BEING
DESIGNATED AS LESS RESTRICTIVE
PROGRAMS, NOT PLACEMENTS, BUT
PROGRAMS OFFER OPPORTUNITIES FOR
FURLOUGHS, OFFER OPPORTUNITIES
FOR RAISING ANIMALS FOR
VOCATIONAL PROGRAMS. SO THINGS
THAT PERHAPS AREN'T NECESSARILY
ALLOWED AT THAT HIGHEST
RESTRICTIVE PLACE. BUT CERTAINLY
THERE, LPS ARE NOT CREATED
EQUAL, BUT THEY ARE EXPECTED TO
HAVE A LESS RESTRICTIVE
PROGRAMING MODEL. YEAH, I AGREE
WITH YOU, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME
REALLY GREAT PROGRAMS THAT ARE
STEP DOWNS. WE'RE PHENOMENAL. I
THINK IT'D BE REALLY GREAT FOR
US TO CAPTURE THE ACTUAL
PLACEMENTS, JUST TO SEE IF
THERE'S ANY SKEWING WITHIN
THERE, AND THEN IN TALKING ABOUT
ADULT TRANSFERS AND HELP ME
UNDERSTAND HERE, BECAUSE I THINK
I'M JUST STRUGGLING WITH THIS
DATA, I SAW THE MAJORITY OF THE
CASES THAT ARE TRANSFERRED TO
ADULT CASES ARE HOMICIDE AND
ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE, BUT THE
MAJORITY OF THE CASES THAT ARE
NOT TRANSFERRED TO ADULT CASES
ARE HOMICIDE AND ATTEMPTED
HOMICIDE. SO I'M I GUESS I'M
STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND IF
WE'RE HAVING 50% HERE AND 50%
HERE, HOW DO WE THEN LOOK AT
THAT SAME EXACT NUMBER FOR
SYSTEMIC CHANGE, POLICY CHANGE,
SHOULD I BE READING THIS IN A
DIFFERENT WAY TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND AND. WELL, I THINK
THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS
HAPPENING. 14 AND 15 YEAR OLDS
CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO ADULT,
SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE,
REHABILITATED AT THE JUVENILE
JUSTICE LEVEL. ALSO, THERE WAS,
EVEN IF AGAIN, IF WE LOOK AT THE
TRAJECTORY OF ADULT TRANSFERS,
THEY'RE STILL, GOING TO BE, FOR
EXAMPLE, WHAT I, WHAT I KNOW IS
THAT IN 20 1964, THERE WERE 64
ADULT TRANSFERS. AND THEN THE AB
102 DATA TELLS US IN 2023, 22,
THERE'S 35. SO WE'RE STILL WE'RE
STILL SEEING A CONSISTENT
DECLINE. AND THAT, I DON'T HAVE
THAT IN THIS IS I PULLED THIS
OUT SEPARATELY, SENATOR. SO YOU
DON'T HAVE THIS CHART, BUT I
WANTED TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS
QUESTION. AND SO I THINK WHAT
WE'RE SAYING IS A COMBINATION OF
PERHAPS WE COULD DIG INTO THE
AGE A LITTLE BETTER, BUT THERE
ARE STILL KIDS THAT ARE OLDER
THAT ARE BEING, KEPT IN THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE COURT AFTER A
MOTION TO, TO TRANSFER TO ADULT
COURT IS FILED. FOR EXAMPLE, OUT
OF THE 53 TRANSFER MOTIONS THAT
WERE FILED IN SAN BERNARDINO,
THERE WERE ONLY SEVEN HEARINGS.
SO THOSE CASES SETTLED. SO IT'S
HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE ALL 53 OF
THOSE CASES WERE 14 AND 15 YEAR
OLDS. OKAY, SO I THINK I THINK
WE NEED WE HAVE THAT NUMBER. DO
WE HAVE THAT NUMBER OF THE, THE
AGE BREAKDOWN OF THE ONES THAT
ARE TRANSFERRED OR STAY, WE DO
OF THE TRANSFERS, BUT IT'S NOT
CONNECTED TO THE OFFENSES, SO WE
WON'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE
CONNECTED. OKAY OKAY. OKAY.
THANK YOU, AND THEN JUST I THINK
I SHOULD KNOW THIS. CAN YOU JUST
FOR MY EDUCATION, 707 BE
COMPARED TO PENAL CODE 2090?
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCE? 290 I
MEAN, YEAH, THE 290 ARE THE SEX
RELATED CRIMES THAT USED TO
REQUIRE A SEX REGISTRATION. SO
IT'S A KIDNAPING, RAPE, SEXUAL
ASSAULT. ANYTHING THAT INVOLVES
THE SEX OFFENSES AND 707 B IS
THE OTHER TYPICAL SERIOUS
OFFENSES LIKE MURDER, ROBBERY,
NOT RELATED TO SEXUAL ASSAULT.
OKAY IN THE REPORT, IT WAS NOTED
THAT FOR COUNTIES THAT ONLY HAD,
WHITE YOUTH, WE DIDN'T COLLECT
THAT DATA BECAUSE IT WAS
COMPARED TO YOUTH OF COLOR. I'M
INTERESTED, THOUGH, IN SEEING IN
THE COUNTIES THAT ONLY HAVE
WHITE YOUTH, IF THERE IS, IN
FACT ANYONE BEING TRANSFERRED TO
ADULT CASES. AND IF THERE'S DATA
THAT SHOWS THAT IF IT'S AN ALL
WHITE YOUTH INSTITUTION, THEY
TEND TO OR ARE WE GOING TO SEE
THE SAME NUMBERS THAT WE SEE IN
OTHER MIXED, COUNTIES, OR ARE WE
GOING TO SEE JUST EVERY SINGLE
WHITE YOUTH IN THAT COUNTY
TRENDING TO LPS AND SO FORTH? SO
I'M CHRISTIAN, I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU HAVE THAT DATA. ARE YOU ABLE
TO SHOW. BUT LIKE I THINK THAT
WILL SHOW US A LOT, TO SEE HOW
WE DIFFERENT YOUTH ARE BEING
TREATED WHEN IT'S JUST MIXED OR
JUST ONE, BACKGROUND. AND YEAH,
THE DATA SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE
ANALYZED AND WE CAN DO A FOLLOW
UP. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
QUESTION FOR YOU, WE PROVIDED
APPROXIMATELY $3.5 MILLION FOR
CAPACITY BUILDING FOR THE
COUNTIES TO, PUT THIS DATA
TOGETHER AND SUBMIT TO US ONE,
TWO QUESTIONS HERE. ONE, DO WE
KNOW HOW EACH COUNTY UTILIZED
THIS? AND TWO, BECAUSE WE
PROVIDED THIS CAPACITY BUILDING,
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO NOW
PROVIDE THIS DATA WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL, FUNDING BECAUSE
THEY'VE BUILT IT. AND NOW THEY
JUST HAVE TO SEND IT UP. WOULD
YOU AGREE WITH THE SECOND PART?
SORRY, SIR. CAN YOU REPEAT THE
SECOND PART? DO THE SECOND PART.
YEAH, WE ALREADY PROVIDED THE
FUNDING. THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR
CAPACITY BUILT AND NOW IT SHOULD
BE. YOU KNOW, I SHOULDN'T SAY I
DON'T WANT TO SAY EASIER, BUT
MAYBE EASIER TO BE ABLE TO JUST
SEND UP THE DATA TO US WITHOUT
HAVING TO CONTINUOUSLY
APPROPRIATE 3.5 MILLION FOR THEM
TO SEND IT UP AS IF WE'RE BUYING
FOR THE DATA, WE'RE PAYING FOR
THE DATA. I WOULD SAY OBVIOUSLY
THE PROBATION MADE IT ASSISTED
IN THIS PROCESS, I'M NOT SURE IF
THIS IS A YOU KNOW, I CAN'T
DEFINITIVELY SAY IF IT'S A ONE
TIME FIX FOR THE PROBLEM, SO WE
CAN GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. AND
FOR MORE ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF, I
BELIEVE, WHAT YOUR FIRST
QUESTION WAS, A 3.5 MILLION OF
DO WE KNOW HOW EXACTLY THE
COUNTY SPENT THE DOLLARS, I
DON'T HAVE THAT BREAKDOWN WITH
ME TODAY, UNFORTUNATELY. BUT IF
THIS IS INFORMATION YOUR STAFF
WOULD LIKE, WE CAN WORK WITH
YOUR STAFF TO GET THIS BREAKDOWN
OF HOW THAT MONEY WAS USED
WITHIN THE COUNTIES. YEAH, THAT
WOULD BE GREAT, JUST FOR US TO
BE BETTER PREPARED IN
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COUNTIES,
YOU KNOW, THIS IS DATA THAT WE
SHOULD COLLECT, AND I DON'T WANT
US TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS DATA
EVERY SINGLE TIME. SO THE 3.5
REALLY BUILT THE SYSTEM. THEN WE
SHOULD BE ABLE TO COLLECT THIS
ANNUALLY WITHOUT, ADDITIONAL
SUPPORT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY
COLLEAGUES? I WAS JUST GOING TO
ASK. THANK YOU FOR THE
PRESENTATION. I'M SORRY I MISSED
PART OF IT, BUT. AND I KNOW IT'S
UNDER YOUR PURVIEW, BUT I'M
HOPING, LIKE, WHO IS COLLECTING
THE DATA ABOUT RECIDIVISM RATE,
ABOUT SUCCESS OF PROGRAMS THAT'S
BEING COLLECTED SOMEWHERE? I'M
ASSUMING AFTER, AB 102, MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT NOW THE
COUNTIES MUST ALSO INCLUDE IN
THEIR COUNTY PLANS, PROGRAM
EVALUATION OR PROGRAM PROGRESS,
I THINK, IS WHAT IT'S DESCRIBED
AS, SO NOW THE COUNTIES WILL BE
TELLING ACRE ABOUT PROGRAM
PROGRESS. THAT'S GOING TO LOOK
DIFFERENT. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE
UNIFORM, BECAUSE IT REALLY CAN'T
BE, BUT WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO
DISTILL, PROGRAM SUCCESS WITH
REGARD TO RECIDIVISM. MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT NO ONE IS
COLLECTING. IT IS, NOT MANY
COUNTIES REPORT IT IN THEIR
COUNTY PLAN. IT IS NOT A
REQUIREMENT. AND AROUND THE
PROGRESS REPORTS, THAT IS JUST
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SINCE. WHAT
HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED SINCE THE
PREVIOUS YEAR'S PLAN. SO IT'S
NOT PROGRESS AROUND THE SPECIFIC
ACTIONS OF THE COUNTY. SO I
DON'T BELIEVE DOJ COLLECTS OR
CITIZEN, BUT I'M GOING TO TURN
TO CHRISTIAN. THEY DON'T, THEY
DON'T REPORT IT IN THEIR LIKE
JUVENILE JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA
REVIEW. NO. SO I KNOW AGAIN, AS
A COUNTY ACTOR THAT WAS REALLY
CRITICAL FOR US TO KNOW IF OUR
PROGRAMS WAS EFFECTIVE,
ESPECIALLY OUR RANCHES AND OUR
CAMPS. AND SO THAT WAS SOMETHING
THAT OUR COLLABORATIVE DID
COLLECT. SO TO MY KNOWLEDGE,
IT'S NOT, IT'S BUT I, YOU KNOW,
I'M NOT THE I DON'T KNOW
EVERYTHING. AND I'M HAPPY TO
RESEARCH THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE
AND GET BACK TO YOU. THANK YOU.
AND BECAUSE I WOULD JUST SAY
JUST TO MADAM CHAIR, FOR, FOR
FUTURE WORK, I THINK THIS IS A
GLARING PROBLEM, I WAS NOT A
HUGE FAN OF US CLOSING DJ. I
THOUGHT THERE WAS A LOT OF GREAT
PROGRAMS IN THERE. I KNOW IN MY
DISTRICT WE HAD A COUPLE
PROGRAMS. THEY DID GOOD WORK.
THEY DID, YOU KNOW, GOOD
OUTCOMES. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW,
MOVING TO A NEW MODEL, WE NEED
TO KNOW, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT BEFORE ABOUT BEING ABLE TO
MEASURE AT BETTER TIMES. WE
DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THIS THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE WHOLE
PROGRAM INTERVENTION IS WORKING,
WITHOUT SOME KIND OF EVALUATION.
SO I THINK THAT'S A GLARING
ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS OR
NEEDS TO BE A BETTER FORM OF
EVALUATION. IF THIS IF THIS PLAN
IS WORKING AND IF IT'S NOT, THEN
HOW DO WE HOW DO WE ADJUST FOR
IT? KIDS ARE AT STAKE 100.
SENATOR ROTH. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE
STATE MUST HAVE SOME ROLE IN
THIS OR YOU WOULDN'T BE SITTING
THERE AND WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING
HERE LISTENING TO YOU. AND I
REALIZE THERE MAY BE SOME
DIFFERENCES FROM COUNTY TO
COUNTY, BUT THERE HAVE TO BE A
HAS TO BE A COMMON SET OF
METRICS THAT WE CAN PUT IN PLACE
. SO WE CAN COMPARE THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF COUNTY PROGRAMS
FROM THE NORTH TO THE CENTRAL TO
THE SOUTH. AND IF WE'RE NOT
DIRECTING, IF THIS IS NOT A
DIRECTIVE RELATIONSHIP, WE CAN
AT LEAST MAKE YOU CAN MAKE SOME
SUGGESTIONS. WE CAN MAKE SOME
SUGGESTIONS TO THE 58 COUNTIES,
IF THEY ALL HAVE THESE PROGRAMS
OR WHICHEVER ONES DO, BECAUSE
IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO
BRING 58 COUNTIES IN HERE AND
TALK TO THEM ABOUT THEIR
RECIDIVISM RATES OR WHAT THEIR
PROGRAMS LOOK LIKE, OR HOW
EFFECTIVE THEY ARE, AND BUT YOU
CAN HELP US PUT TOGETHER A
COMMON SET OF METRICS. AND IF,
IF NORMALLY THIS IS SORT OF A
PERMISSIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE STATE AND THE COUNTIES, I
DON'T REMEMBER. IT SEEMS TO ME I
THOUGHT I HEARD BEFORE THAT IT
SORT OF WAS WE COULD MAKE AT
LEAST SOMETHING DIRECTIVE. SO WE
GET SOME DATA BACK SO WE
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON DOWN
AT THE COUNTY LEVEL WITH RESPECT
TO, JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
RECIDIVISM AND REHABILITATION. I
DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT MY COLLEAGUE
WAS GETTING AT. WE'RE WE'RE NOT
GOING TO BE AROUND TO HELP YOU
WITH THAT. BUT, MY AMAZING
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR HERE WILL BE.
AND SHE CAN PERHAPS PUT THAT
TOGETHER AND WE CAN WATCH FROM
OUR SOFAS AND SEE HOW IT GETS
IMPLEMENTED. WELL, I'LL BE
REACHING OUT TO YOU AND YOUR
HOPEFULLY SECOND, YOUR NEXT
ROLE. NO, I MEAN, I DO WANT TO
STATE THAT I THINK COUNTIES ARE,
ARE ARE, ARE WILLING TO PARTNER
IN THIS AREA. I THINK THAT
THERE'S A LOT OF, MOTIVATION AND
, HOPE THAT, THIS REALIGNMENT
WILL WORK. SO I DON'T WANT TO
HAVE YOU, YOU KNOW, LEAVE YOU
WITH THIS SENSE THAT PROBATION
IS NOT COOPERATIVE BECAUSE THEY
ARE EXTREMELY COOPERATIVE. IT'S
A MATTER OF KIND OF LOOKING
AGAIN AT WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE ALL, ALL BOATS
ARE RISING. AND WE HAVE OTHER
COUNTY STAKEHOLDERS LIKE COUNTY
OFFICES OF EDUCATION AND
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH THAT WILL BE
SERVING THESE YOUTH NOW,
SOMETIMES UP TO SEVEN YEARS IN
THE FACILITY. SO IT'S REALLY
MORE OF A 4 TO 5 PARENTING,
SITUATION. THÀNH. SO I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE
BEEN REALLY PLEASED WITH, WITH
PARTNERSHIP. I MEAN, NO, I WAS
JUST GOING TO SAY, I THINK ALL
THAT'S GREAT, BUT THAT'S OUR
HOPES AND DREAMS, RIGHT? AND WE
JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
DATA AND THE OUTCOMES, THE
INTERVENTIONS THAT WE'RE DOING
MATCH THOSE HOPES AND DREAMS.
YEAH. WE JUST, ASKED THE VOTERS
TO APPROVE A NEW BOND, YOU MIGHT
RECALL, 20 YEARS AGO WE PASSED
PROP 63 AND SAID STATE'S NOT
GOING TO DO IT ANYMORE. THE
COUNTIES ARE GOING TO DO IT ALL,
AND EVERY COUNTY IS DIFFERENT.
SO YOU ALL SHOULD DO IT
DIFFERENT. AND THEN WE CAME BACK
HERE 20 YEARS LATER AND SAID
THAT DIDN'T QUITE WORK OUT
RIGHT. THAT DIDN'T QUITE WORK
OUT, AND SO WE HAVE TO LIKE BACK
UP AND THIS IS GOING TO BE MORE
OF A DIRECTIONAL RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE COUNTIES AND THE
STATE. AND I JUST HOPE I WOULD
JUST REALLY HOPE THAT WE'VE
LEARNED FROM THIS 20 YEARS
EXPERIMENT WE HAD WITH WITH PROP
63. NOW TO PROP ONE AND GOING
FORWARD WITH THIS ISSUE THAT WE
DON'T WE DON'T RECREATE THE SAME
KIND OF QUAGMIRE AND PEOPLE'S
LIVES ARE AT STAKE, RIGHT? I
MEAN, PEOPLE, PEOPLE DIE. I HOPE
WE LEARN FROM OUR PAST MISTAKES
AND IF I MAY, YOU KNOW, SINCE
YOU ALL ARE THE ONES THAT ARE
GOING TO HAVE TO CRUNCH THE DATA
AND COME, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE
PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE GOING TO BE
SITTING UP HERE ANSWERING THE
QUESTIONS. I MEAN, IF YOU WANT
TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO US,
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CRUNCH
THE DATA AND BE ABLE TO RESPOND
AS TO RECIDIVISM AND PROGRAM
EFFECTIVENESS, YOU YOU ALL
ACTUALLY SHOULD BE SPECIFYING
WHAT DATA ELEMENTS ARE REPORTED
UP FROM THE COUNTY AND IF YOU
CAN TAKE DISSIMILAR DATA AND
CRUNCH IT TOGETHER AND DELIVER A
PRODUCT, THAT'S FINE. BUT I
SUSPECT YOU'LL FIND THAT YOU
NEED SOME COMMONALITY IN THE
DATA REPORTING TO ENABLE YOU ALL
TO DO YOUR JOBS AND THAT'S WHAT
I'M SUGGESTING, AND I DON'T KNOW
HOW TO DO IT. AND IF WE NEED TO
HELP IT IN THE SIX MINUTES OR
SIX MONTHS THAT I HAVE LEFT AND
THAT SENATOR EGGMAN HAS LEFT,
WE'LL TRY TO DO THAT IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE BUDGET
SUBCOMMITTEE. IF NOT, THEN WE'LL
LEAVE IT TO OTHERS. BUT THAT'S
JUST A SUGGESTION FROM MY
STANDPOINT. YEAH. WHICH IS, YOU
KNOW, WE DEFINITELY NEED A
MATCH. THE CALENDAR, DATA
COLLECTION. AND THAT'S SOMETHING
WE CAN LOOK INTO. AND I'D LOVE
TO DO THAT. I DO THINK WE NEED
TO ADD ADDITIONAL DATA POINTS TO
BE COLLECTED. I THINK THE
RECIDIVISM RECIDIVISM PART IS SO
IT'S SO IMPORTANT. YOU'RE
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. YOU KNOW WHAT
IS THIS REALLY WORKING? ARE THE
FIRE CAMPS WORKING? ARE THE
ANIMAL RANCHES ARE THEY REALLY
HELPING KIDS NOT COME BACK, AND
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT
YOU'RE SAYING. WE'VE HAD A
WONDERFUL TWO YEAR JOURNEY SO
FAR. DIRECTOR WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THIS. I HAVE ONE LAST
QUESTION. IT WAS ON PAGE FOUR OF
THE AGENDA, WE SEE SOME DATA,
SOME NUMBERS, BUT THERE'S ONE
SECTION. SECTION C, NUMBER OF
YOUTH TRANSFERRED FROM CITF TO
LRP. THAT IS THAT IS TAKEN OUT
BECAUSE FOR PRIVACY LESS THAN 12
YOUTH. IF WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT
NUMBERS, IF THIS IS JUST GOING
TO BE A NUMBER, HOW DO WE HOW DO
WE THINK THAT THEIR PRIVACY IS
GOING TO BE OR THAT WE'RE GOING
TO KNOW WHICH KID WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT? THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT,
HHS HOLDS VERY NEAR AND DEAR,
THERE'S, HIPAA ISSUES, FERPA
ISSUES, CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUES.
AND THIS IS HOW IT'S DESIGNED
UNDER HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
NOT TO REVEAL NUMBERS LESS THAN
12. YOU'RE ASKING HOW CAN IT BE,
SOMEBODY BE IDENTIFIED, DIED IF
IT'S JUST A NUMBER. AND, I THINK
THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, BUT I
THINK IF WE WERE TO REVEAL
NUMBERS LESS THAN 12, WE ALSO
HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO REVEAL
COUNTIES. IT MAY NOT JUST STAY
WITH A STATEWIDE AGGREGATE, I
THINK I THINK IT'S A SLIPPERY
SLOPE AND THAT IF THERE ARE, YOU
KNOW, A DISCUSSION THAT YOU WANT
TO HAVE ON THIS EXACT TOPIC, I'M
HAPPY TO GO BACK TO OUR FOLKS
AND SET UP A MEETING SO WE CAN
TALK ABOUT THIS VERY TOPIC.
YEAH, YEAH, THAT'D BE THAT'D BE
GOOD. OKAY. SO THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT IS APPLIED TO ALL HHS. YES.
OKAY. NOT NOT NECESSARILY TO DOJ
AND CDC ARE BUT WE ARE LOOKING
AT A HEALTH LENS NOW. WE ARE
TRYING TO, HAVE ALL THE SAME,
BARRIERS AND ABILITY TO PROTECT
OUR, OUR YOUTH'S IDENTITY
BECAUSE WE'RE HOPING, ULTIMATELY
THAT THEY'RE TREATED AS YOUTH
WHO ARE GOING TO BE RESILIENT
ENOUGH TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND TO
MOVE OFF OF THAT PIPELINE TO
PRISON. AND SO IT'S JUST ANOTHER
WAY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO, I
THINK, DESTIGMATIZE AS WELL, DO
WE HAVE COUNTIES THAT HAVE LESS
THAN 12 YOUTH IN SITES AND
THINGS LIKE THAT? YES. OKAY. IS
THERE A DIFFERENT WAY THAT WE'RE
APPROACHING PROVIDING COURSE
CORRECTION OR TO IN THOSE
COUNTIES? I MEAN, WE SO WE KNOW
THE COUNTIES, RIGHT. AND SO AND
WE HAVE A WHOLE UNIT CALLED THE
COUNTY LIAISON UNIT. AND SO THEY
WILL BECOME FAMILIAR WITH WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN THEIR COUNTY. AND
THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO VERY
SPECIFIC ASSISTANCE WITH, SAY,
THE NATIVE AMERICAN YOUTH AND
CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE,
PROGRAMING. SO WE WILL KNOW THE
INFORMATION AND WE WILL BE THE
BODY TO PROVIDE THE TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE. OKAY. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, DEPARTMENT FINANCE, JUST
THOSE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS IF WE
CAN GET A RESPONSE TO THAT. YEAH
NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU. SENATOR. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MOVING ON TO ISSUE THREE. WE'LL
BE TALKING ABOUT THE CHILD
WELFARE SERVICES, THE COW SAUCE
AUTOMATED RESPONSE AND
ENGAGEMENT SYSTEM UPDATE. NO,
IT'S NOT CARES CARES.
OUT PART. WELL, THE IT SYSTEMS
ARE JUST, YOU KNOW. OH. IT'S
OKAY. YOU KNOW, THERE'S CARES.
THERE'S COW HERE'S THERE'S COW
SAUCE. THERE'S FISCAL. YOU KNOW
OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME HERE. SO
I'M CYNTHIA TUCKER, I AM THE A
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR CHILD
WELFARE DIGITAL SERVICES UNDER
THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY AND
SOLUTIONS INTEGRATION, PER THE
AGENDA, THERE WERE TWO
QUESTIONS. SO I'M GOING TO
RESPOND TO BOTH OF THOSE. SO THE
FIRST, IN REGARDS TO HOW MUCH WE
PROJECT TO SPEND IN MAY OF 2024
AND JUNE 2024, WE ARE LOOKING AT
IN MAY, ROUGHLY 17 TO 24
MILLION, AND THEN IN JUNE 20TH 4
TO 32 MILLION. AND FOR MAY AND
JUNE, THESE RANGES ARE BASED ON
WHEN PAY POINTS ARE PLANNED FOR
COMPLETED WORK ACTIVITIES, YOU
KNOW, WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED AND
INVOICE CAN VARY, WHICH IS WHY
WE'VE PROVIDED A RANGE WITH
REGARDS TO BOTH OF THESE MONTHS
AND AS PAY POINTS CAN MOVE BASED
ON ACTUAL COMPLETION OF
ACTIVITY. AND SO THE AMOUNTS FOR
MAY AND JUNE ARE BASED ON THE
PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR THOSE
MONTHS. REGARDING THE SECOND
PART OF THE QUESTION OF COST TO
PAY INVOICES FOR WORK COMPLETED
EARLIER, THERE IS APPROXIMATELY
89 MILLION PENDING. INVOICES ARE
AWAITING STATE ACCEPTANCE TO
INVOICE, AND ALL OF THESE COSTS
WILL BE PAID OUT OF THE CURRENT
YEAR. APPROPRIATION. OKAY. THANK
YOU. LAST NIGHT WE GOT THE
UPDATED INFORMATION AND SO FORTH
. OKAY, SO CORRECT MY MATH HERE.
IF I'M DOING THIS WRONG. ACTUAL
EXPENDITURES 56 MILLION. BUT YOU
HAVE PENDING APPROVAL UP TO
APRIL OF 89 MILLION. SO THAT'S A
TOTAL OF ACCOUNTED FOR 145
MILLION OF THE POTENTIALLY 200,
130 TO 200 MILLION. NOW I SEE
THE PROJECTED EXPENDITURES FOR
MAY AND JUNE, WHICH IS ALMOST
TIMES FOUR OF WHAT'S BEEN YOUR
AVERAGE SO FAR? THE AVERAGE HAS
BEEN 6.2 MILLION PER MONTH SINCE
JULY OF LAST YEAR. WHAT'S GOING
TO BE DIFFERENT? YOU KNOW, 6.2
MILLION AND YOU'RE JUMPING FROM
TO 17 TO 24, 24 TO 32 MILLION
SPENT IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS.
WHAT DO YOU ANTICIPATE IS GOING
TO BE THE DIFFERENCE THAT YOU'LL
BE ABLE TO MEET THAT HIGHER? SO
I THINK WITH THE WITH THE TWO,
THE 56 AND 89, IT COMES OUT TO,
I THINK AROUND 13 MILLION OR I
CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY PER
MONTH, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE
QUESTION. ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES
DIDN'T ADD THAT PART. YEAH. SO,
IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT NUMBERS
YOU'RE LOOKING AT. RIGHT? SO
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT, I DO
UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT A
4 OR 5 SIX, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A
JUMP THERE. I SAID ONE OF THE
KEY THINGS IS, IS WE PUT IN A
NEW, CONSTRUCT OF CONTRACTS, SO
IT COSTS SOME DELAYS IN
INVOICING, YOU KNOW, FOR THE
EARLY PART OF THE YEAR. BUT
PREDOMINANTLY IT'S RIGHT NOW AT
THIS POINT IN TIME, WHICH SHOWED
IN OUR ORIGINAL PROJECT SCHEDULE
FROM OUR SPR A COUPLE OF YEARS
AGO, THIS IS PROBABLY THE PEAK
AMOUNT OF WORK. WE HAVE MORE
WORK STREAMS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW
STARTING JANUARY. WELL JANUARY
WE ADDED EVEN MORE. AND SO WE
HAVE MORE WORK, MORE PAY POINTS
ACTUALLY OCCURRING RIGHT NOW
THAN WE DID AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE FISCAL YEAR OR LAST YEAR. SO
IT'S REALLY HOW THE WORK PEAKS.
AND, YOU KNOW, EBBS AND FLOWS.
THE ADDITIONAL 70 MILLION WAS
PROVISIONAL UPON SATISFACTORY
PROGRESS. THIS IS THE FIRST
REPORT WE'VE GOTTEN THAT WAS
SUPPOSED TO START IN JANUARY OF
MONTHLY PROGRESS AND SO FORTH.
SO WE ARE FIVE MONTHS BEHIND LÀ
QUESTION ON TO YOU IS, WOULD YOU
SAY WE'VE MET SATISFACTORY
PROGRESS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE
THE ADDITIONAL 70 MILLION? SO
BRIAN METZGER LÀ. OH, THE
DEFINITION OF VERIFIED
SATISFACTORY PROGRESS HAD THREE
COMPONENTS IN THE PROVISIONAL
BUDGET BILL LANGUAGE. THE FIRST
WAS DEMONSTRATED PROGRESS
TOWARDS COMPLETING PRODUCT
MILESTONES FOR AWS CARES IN
EARLY APRIL. WE RECEIVED A
PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION THAT
SHOWED US THAT THAT SEVERAL
MILESTONES HAD BEEN COMPLETED
AND THAT END USER TESTING HAD
BEEN DONE FOR THOSE. AND SO I
WOULD SAY FOR THOSE MILESTONES,
WE SAW SATISFACTORY PROGRESS.
THE SECOND COMPONENT OF THE
DEFINITION WAS RELATED TO, USER
ADOPTION AND THE USER ADOPTION
PLAN. THAT WAS PUT INTO PLACE
AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE
SATISFACTORILY COMMUNICATING
WITH AND HELPING END USERS TO
UNDERSTAND HOW THEY WOULD ADOPT
THE SYSTEM WHEN IT WAS COMPLETED
, WE'RE I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT
NOW. I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THAT
PLAN, SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING
I'D HAVE TO TAKE BACK, THE
THIRD, COMPONENT, I BELIEVE. AND
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I
BELIEVE IT WAS, AND SORRY I HAVE
IT. HERE IT IS, INCORPORATION OF
RELEVANT AND USER END USER
FEEDBACK INTO ACTUALLY
DEVELOPING THE PRODUCT
MILESTONES, THAT I BELIEVE HAS
BEEN SATISFIED AND THERE HAS
BEEN, END USER SYSTEM TESTING
THAT HAS BEEN DONE. THEY HAVE
TAKEN FEEDBACK FROM THE END
USERS, AND INCORPORATED THEIR
STORIES, THE THINGS THAT THEY
FOUND THAT NEED TO BE
INCORPORATED INTO THE SYSTEM TO
MAKE IT WORK GOING FORWARD. THEY
ARE WORKING ON INCORPORATING
THAT INTO THE PROJECT SCHEDULE
AND THE MILESTONES THAT ARE TO
BE COMPLETED. SO I WOULD SAY AT
LEAST FOR TWO OF THE THREE, THEY
HAVE SHOWN SATISFACTORY
PROGRESS. IT'S ABOUT THAT LAST
ONE ABOUT USER ADOPTION AND
COMMUNICATION THAT I WOULD HAVE
TO SEE. BUT I THINK THE ONE
FURTHER POINT THERE IS JUST THAT
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE IS ALSO
SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERING, AND
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE RECEIVING A
PROVISIONAL NOTIFICATION LETTER
THAT SHOWS THAT THEY AGREE THAT
THAT IS THE CASE AS WELL. AND
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE
NOT SEEN, SO WE'RE STILL WAITING
THAT LETTER. QUÊ DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. SO I THINK AS WE
MENTIONED IN THE LAST
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING, THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT'S STILL UNDER
REVIEW AND WILL CIRCLE BACK
AFTER MAY REVISION. OKAY OKAY.
AND CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR ME AND
APOLOGIZE? I CAN'T REMEMBER
THIS, THE MONTHLY SPENDING PLANS
IS, IS FOR THE WHOLE CALENDAR
YEAR. WAS THAT REQUIREMENT FOR
JUST THE FISCAL YEAR UP TO JUNE?
THERE WAS A SORRY. THERE WE GO.
WELL, THERE WASN'T BEGAN
REQUESTING. YEAH. WHEN THEY GET.
SO COULD YOU RESTATE IT THEN
PLEASE LAUP ON REQUESTING
MONTHLY SPENDING PLANS STARTING
IN JANUARY. WAS IT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR FOR THE CALENDAR
YEAR? IT WAS. SO JUST TO CLARIFY
, THE THERE IS A MONTHLY
REPORTING REQUIREMENT THAT AS A
PART OF THAT, LEGISLATIVE
UPDATE, THEY REPORT OUT THE
CHANGES IN THE BUDGET ON A
MONTHLY BASIS. WHAT WE WERE
ASKING FOR WAS THE MONTHLY
EXPENDITURES, BECAUSE THE
EXPENDITURES WERE NOT TRACKING
THE BUDGET. IT WAS UNDER
SPENDING THE BUDGET THAT WAS
AVAILABLE. SO WE WANTED TO
UNDERSTAND STARTING IN JANUARY,
WHAT WERE THE EXPENDITURES ON A
MONTHLY BASIS GIVEN THERE WAS
THIS FISCAL PRESSURE THAT'S
FACING THE STATE? AND IF THERE
ARE RESOURCES AVAILABLE HERE TO
HEAD OFF SOME OTHER CUTS THAT
ARE BEING PROPOSED IN THE
BUDGET, WE WANTED TO UNDERSTAND
WHETHER THOSE FUNDS COULD BE
MADE AVAILABLE. BEALL. AND
THAT'S WHAT WE ASK FOR. STARTING
IN JANUARY. GOT IT. THANK YOU.
SENATOR ROTH, ARE WE GOOD? WELL,
I THINK SO. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY
USER INTERFACE IS PRETTY
IMPORTANT IN THIS, WHICH IS WHAT
YOU WERE REFERRING TO. IS THAT
RIGHT, SIR? THE USER ADOPTION
PLAN? YES. THE USER ADOPTION,
PARTICULARLY IN A SYSTEM THAT
INVOLVES ALL 58 COUNTIES. AND
ABSOLUTELY, THAT'S USUALLY WHERE
THESE PROJECTS BREAK DOWN. SO
YOU'RE MONITORING THAT OR
SOMEBODY IS RIGHT AND YOU'LL
TALK TO US ABOUT THAT. YEAH. WE
WE'VE WE HAVE DONE WE'RE DOING A
LOT OF WORK WITH OUR COUNTIES
WITH REGARDS TO THE FOCUS OF
USER ADOPTION, INCLUDING AS, AS
MR. METZGER SAID, THE GETTING
THE USER FEEDBACK, TRYING TO
MAKE IT BETTER. YOU KNOW, WE'RE
WORKING WITH THE EACH COUNTY OR
EACH ORGANIZATION INCLUDES THE
TWO FOUR Â TRIBES. IT INCLUDES
CSS. THERE'S A LOT PROBATION
OFFICES. IT'S NOT JUST YOU KNOW,
CHILD WELFARE IN 58 COUNTIES. WE
HAVE ABOUT 125, 127
ORGANIZATIONS WERE ACTUALLY
COORDINATING WITH. BUT, YOU
KNOW, TO UNDERSTAND THEIR NEEDS,
UNDERSTAND THEIR CHANGES, YOU
KNOW, DOING MORE, NOW THAT WE'RE
REALLY MOVING IN THIS PROJECT,
DOING A LOT MORE COMMUNICATIONS
ABOUT WHAT'S COMING, YOU KNOW,
WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO SEE
CHANGING? SO THERE'S REALLY BEEN
A SHIFT IN THE NHÀ IN SOME OF
THE COMMUNICATIONS OVER. I WOULD
PROBABLY SAY DURING THIS FISCAL
YEAR, WHICH WE REPORT ON MONTHLY
IN OUR LÀ REPORT, AND OF COURSE,
IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO THAT
AREA, WE CAN DEFINITELY TAKE
THAT BACK. AND, AND GET FURTHER
INFORMATION. USER RESISTANCE IS
OFTEN THE WHAT BRINGS ABOUT THE
DEFEAT OF IT PROJECTS. HAVING
SPENT SIX YEARS ON THE OTHER
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRING IT. AND SO
WHILE THERE'S PRESSURE,
FINANCIAL PRESSURE TO SCRAPE
MONEY BACK, I WOULD HATE TO SEE
MONEY NOT BE SPENT ON MAKING
SURE THAT THOSE IN THE FIELD WHO
NEED TO USE THIS DON'T GET THE,
YOU KNOW, FAIL TO GET THE PROPER
SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO
OVERCOME THE NATURAL RESISTANCE,
TO GO TO A NEW SYSTEM, BECAUSE
WE NEED TO MAKE THIS WORK,
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'VE SPENT A
BUNCH OF MONEY ON IT. SO THAT'S
MY ONLY COMMENT, MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR WHAT
YOU DO. THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING
TO HOLD THE ITEM OPEN. NO
FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS. THANK
YOU.
OUR FINAL ITEM ON THE AGENDA,
OUR PROPOSAL FOR INVESTMENTS,
YOU'LL NOTE ON YOUR AGENDA THERE
ARE FOUR MORE ITEMS. WE'RE ONLY
GOING TO HAVE PRESENTATION ON
THE FIRST ONE, IF THE SPEAKER
WOULD COME FORWARD, YOU HAVE
THREE MINUTES TO PRESENT ON
PERMANENTLY AUTHORIZED THE
EMERGENCY FOOD BANK RESERVE.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN JABBAR AND
MEMBERS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TALK ABOUT OUR DISASTER FOOD
REQUEST TODAY, I'LL JUST START
BY SAYING I THINK EVERYBODY IN
THIS ROOM CAN PROBABLY THINK OF
A DISASTER THAT THEY HAVE GONE
THROUGH OVER THE LAST YEAR, OR
FAMILY OR FRIENDS IN OTHER PARTS
OF THE STATE THAT HAVE, I LIVE
IN SONOMA COUNTY, WHERE THE
THREAT OF FIRE IS EVER PRESENT
HERE IN SACRAMENTO. I KNOW
FLOODING IS SOMETHING THAT IS
CONSTANTLY ON PEOPLE'S MINDS, SO
DISASTERS CAN REALLY IMPACT ANY
OF US AT ANY MOMENT, THE
NATIONAL RISK INDEX WAS UPDATED
BY FEMA LAST YEAR, AND IT
PREDICTED WHAT THEY CALL VERY
HIGH OR RELATIVELY HIGH RISK FOR
WELL OVER HALF OF CALIFORNIA'S
58 COUNTIES AND AT LEAST
MODERATE FOR NEARLY THE ENTIRE
STATE. SO IF YOU LOOK AT A
VISUAL MAP THAT THEY CREATE
EVERY YEAR, CALIFORNIA IS
BASICALLY ENTIRELY IN RED, AND
IN 2019, CALIFORNIA CREATED THE
STATE DISASTER FOOD ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM IN RESPONSE TO MASSIVE
FIRES, ACTUALLY, IN SONOMA
COUNTY AT THE TIME, THAT WERE
IMPACTING ALSO A LOT OF THE
STATE THROUGH PUBLIC SAFETY
POWER SHUTOFFS THAT WERE
PREEMPTIVE, SINCE THEN, THE
PROGRAM HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY
EFFECTIVE FOR FOOD BANKS, ABOUT
14,000 BOXES OF FOOD HAVE GONE
OUT IN JUST THE LAST TWO YEARS
ALONE IN RESPONSE TO EIGHT
SEPARATE DISASTERS FROM FIRES,
FLOODING, SNOWSTORMS EVEN LAST
YEAR. AND ACTUALLY JUST A QUICK
EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, RELEVANT FOR
COMMITTEE MEMBERS HERE, FEEDING
AMERICA, RIVERSIDE, SAN
BERNARDINO IN SENATOR ROTH'S
DISTRICT ACTUALLY RECEIVED ABOUT
1000 BOXES LAST YEAR IN RESPONSE
TO THE SNOWSTORMS THAT HAPPENED,
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM IS THAT
IT'S IMMEDIATE. SO UNLIKE MANY
OTHER FEDERAL RESOURCES THAT CAN
COME IN IN RESPONSE TO A
DISASTER, FOR EXAMPLE, DISASTER
CALFRESH, WHICH IS REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT, THOSE OFTEN LAG
A COUPLE OF MONTHS BEHIND WHEN
THE DISASTER STRIKES. SO WE JUST
SAW THAT IN SAN DIEGO, ACTUALLY,
WHERE THE FLOODING WAS IMPACTING
THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, IN IN
LATE JANUARY INTO FEBRUARY. BUT
SOME OF THE FEDERAL SUPPORTS
DIDN'T COME UNTIL MARCH, SO THE
BEAUTY OF THIS PROGRAM IS THAT
IT'S IMMEDIATE. SO ESSENTIALLY
HOW IT WORKS IS THAT A FOOD BANK
CAN CALL CDSS WHO RUNS THE
PROGRAM, TO SAY WE'RE IN, YOU
KNOW, DISASTER RESPONSE MODE.
AND THEN LITERALLY THE NEXT DAY,
THE CDSS CAN SEND FOOD BOXES OUT
BASICALLY INSTANTLY, YOU KNOW,
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, WHEN A
FAMILY IS EXPERIENCING FOOD
INSECURITY BECAUSE OF A
DISASTER, IT DOESN'T WORK TO
SAY, DON'T WORRY, THERE'LL BE
FOOD IN TWO MONTHS FROM NOW,
RIGHT? THEY NEED FOOD
IMMEDIATELY AND THAT'S HOW THIS
THIS PROGRAM WORKS. AND THIS
ALLOWS FOOD BANKS THAT ARE
ALREADY EMBEDDED IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES AND REALLY TRUSTED
AND HAVE MANY RELATIONSHIPS AND
NETWORKS TO REACH FAMILIES, TO,
TO, TO, TO GET OUT SHELF STABLE
BOXES OF FOOD THAT REQUIRE
MINIMAL COOKING TO DISPLACED
FAMILIES OR TO PEOPLE THAT MAY
HAVE THEIR HOMES STILL BUT HAVE
LOST THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME
BECAUSE THEY'RE A PLACE OF
EMPLOYMENT, HAS BEEN IMPACTED BY
THE DISASTER. SO THE MOST
IMMEDIATE NEED WITH THIS PROGRAM
IS TO PERMANENTLY PLACE IT IN
STATUTE, SO THAT IT CAN KEEP
OPERATING RELIABLY AS IT HAS
BEEN OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. SO
WITH CLIMATE CHANGE MAKING
DISASTERS MORE FREQUENT, THE
THREAT OF BIG EARTHQUAKES, WE
ARE SIMPLY ASKING THAT THE STATE
MAINTAIN THIS PROGRAM THAT HAS
ALREADY PROVEN TO BE INVALUABLE
FOR COUNTLESS COMMUNITIES ON THE
FRONT LINES OF DISASTER RESPONSE
. SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THIS
ITEM TODAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS.
OKAY. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY TIME
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU'D
LIKE TO DO PROVIDE A PUBLIC
COMMENT ON THE ISSUES THAT WE
HEARD TODAY, PLEASE STEP ON UP.
THIS IS YOUR MOMENT TO SHINE.
HI, MADAM CHAIR AND SENATOR
ROTH, KELLY O'BRIEN FROM WESTERN
CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY, JUST
HERE IN SUPPORT OF PERMANENTLY
AUTHORIZING THE EMERGENCY FOOD
BANK RESERVE AND ALSO IN SUPPORT
OF THE FUNDING THE DIAPER BANK
SO THEY CAN CONTINUE OPERATIONS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. KELLY
BROOKS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF DIAPER
BANKS HERE IN SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED FUNDING FIVE YEARS
AGO, IN THE FACE OF CRUSHING AND
INCREASING COST OF LIVING FOR
LOW INCOME PARENTS AND THE DIRE
IMPACT THAT POVERTY WAS HAVING
ON CHILDREN, THE LEGISLATURE
PROVIDED LIMITED TERM, LIMITED
TERM FUNDING FOR DIAPER BANKS.
THE LAST ROUND OF FUNDING
INCLUDED 30 MILLION OVER THREE
YEARS. THAT EXPIRES JUNE 30TH,
2024. WELL, THE FUNDING WAS
LIMITED TERM. IT WAS CERTAINLY
THE HOPE AND THE EXPECTATION OF
THE LEGISLATURE THAT FUNDING
WOULD BE MADE PERMANENT,
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT HAS NOT
HAPPENED AND THE FUNDING WILL
EXPIRE IN JUST SIX WEEKS, IF
STATE FUNDING EXPIRES AND THE
STRUCTURE COLLAPSES, IT WILL
TAKE YEARS, IF TO REBUILD THE
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S BEEN
DELIVERING OVER 160 MILLION
DIAPERS OVER THE LAST FIVE
YEARS, WE KNOW THE LEGISLATURE
IS FACING DIFFICULT CHOICES,
JUST LIKE THE LOW INCOME
FAMILIES WHO HAVE COME TO RELY
ON FREE DIAPERS, FAMILIES ARE
MAKING CHOICES BETWEEN FOOD,
RENT, UTILITIES AND DIAPERS. 57%
OF PARENTS AND CAREGIVERS
REPORTED MISSING AN AVERAGE OF
14 DAYS OF SCHOOL OR WORK PER
MONTH, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE
ENOUGH, DIAPERS TO DROP THEIR
THEIR CHILD OFF AT CHILDCARE.
THE WANT OF DIAPERS CAN RESULT
IN UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS FOR
INFANTS, CREATING A GREATER COST
IN MEDICAL TREATMENT DUE TO
RASHES AND INFECTIONS. WE HOPE
THE LEGISLATURE CAN FIND SOME
AMOUNT OF FUNDING TO CONTINUE
THE DIAPER BANK FUNDING, WHICH
HAS BECOME AN IMPORTANT PART OF
THE SAFETY NET OVER THE LAST
FIVE YEARS. THANK YOU. MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, MARK FAROOQ,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT
OF THE CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITAL
FUNDING PROPOSAL THAT'S ON THE
AGENDA. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR,
FOR INCLUDING THAT AS ONE OF THE
ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. JUST WANTED
TO POINT OUT THAT THREE QUARTERS
OF A MILLION CALIFORNIANS RELY
ON CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITALS FOR
CARE, AND TWO THIRDS OF THOSE
HOSPITALS OPERATE IN THE RED.
WHEN ONE OF THOSE HOSPITALS HAS
TO CLOSE A SERVICE OR AT THE
WORST CASE SCENARIO, RUNS THE
RISK OF CLOSURE. YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT ADDING HOURS TO THE TRAVEL
TIME OF PEOPLE TO GET BASIC
MEDICAL SERVICES, INCLUDING
ACCESS TO EMERGENCY ROOMS AND
MATERNITY CARE SERVICES. SO I
WANT TO THANK YOU AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR YOUR CONTINUED
CONSIDERATION FOR THIS PROPOSAL.
THANK YOU. THANKS, MARK. GOOD
MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, CONNIE DELGADO, ON
BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL
LEADERSHIP FORUM, THESE ARE THE
33 DISTRICT AND MUNICIPAL
HOSPITALS IN THE STATE IN IN
BUDGET YEAR 2021 AND 2022, THEY
RECEIVED BRIDGE LOANS, AND THOSE
BRIDGE LOANS HELPED THEM WITH
CASH FLOW. THE THOSE LOANS ARE
DUE YEAR ONE TO DATE HAS BEEN
PAID IN FULL AND ON TIME. THE
HOSPITALS HAVE PAID THOSE LOANS
BACK. WE ARE LOOKING FOR AN
EXTENSION OF THE REPAYMENT TERMS
FOR YEAR TWO. THOSE MONIES WILL
BE DUE IN DECEMBER OF 2024, AS
YOU HAVE HEARD, HOSPITALS HAVE
CONTINUED TO FACE, DISTRESSED
TIMES. AND THESE HOSPITALS, 14
OF THEM RECEIVED THE BRIDGE
LOANS. OF THOSE 14, NINE OF THEM
ALSO RECEIVED DISTRESSED
HOSPITAL LOAN FUNDING. SO JUST
INDICATIVE OF THEIR DIRE, DIRE
FINANCIAL STRAITS. AND WE ARE
LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO
REPAY BACK YEAR TWO OF THOSE
LOANS. WE WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
AGENDIZING THIS ISSUE AND FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. JOSH
GALLAGHER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA. AS YOU KNOW, WITH
THE PASSAGE OF SB EIGHT, 23
COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENTS ARE
NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FULL
CONTINUUM OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL, INCLUDING CARE
AND FOR THE HIGHEST NEEDS YOUTH
PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED TO STATE J
RELATIVE TO THE AB 102 DATA.
WHILE WE HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE DATA
ANALYSIS AND THE REPORT WAS
COMPLETED, WE AGREE WITH THE
GOAL OF AVOIDING NET WIDENING
AND ARE ENCOURAGED BY OICERS
FINDING THAT THEY ARE NOT SEEING
IT OVERALL IN THE DATA. WE
BELIEVE IT'S A DELICATE BALANCE
AS WE TRY TO STAND UP QUALITY
JUVENILE PROGRAMS THAT CAN
REDUCE ADULT TRANSFERS, PROTECT
PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PROVIDE
MEANINGFUL TREATMENT AND
EDUCATION PROGRAMS THAT CAN
TRANSFORM LIVES. WE ALSO STAND
READY TO PARTNER IN EFFORTS TO
IDENTIFY AND REDUCE DISPARITIES
IN THE SYSTEM. AS YOUTH ARE
ORDERED TO OUR CARE AND
TREATMENT, WE LOOK FORWARD TO
MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT WITH THE
LEGISLATURE AND OCR ON OUR
SHARED PRIORITIES IN THIS
SIGNIFICANT POLICY CHANGE IN
REALIGNMENT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. I'M CHRIS
CARTER, REPRESENTING THE LOS
ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK. THE
L.A. FOOD BANK FULLY SUPPORTS
THE REQUEST FOR $10 MILLION IN
THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE DIAPER
BANK PROGRAM. ITEM TWO DIAPERS
ARE THE MOST COMMONLY REQUESTED
RESOURCE AT THE L.A. FOOD BANK,
THANKS TO THE STATE'S DIAPER
BANK PROGRAM. THE L.A. FOOD BANK
HAS DISTRIBUTED OVER 23 MILLION
DIAPERS FOR OVER HALF A MILLION
INFANTS SINCE 2019. THE PROGRAM
WILL CEASE AT THE END OF JUNE IN
20 COUNTIES ACROSS THE STATE
WITHOUT CONTINUED FUNDING. THE
L.A. REGIONAL FOOD BANK URGES
YOU TO KEEP THIS CRITICAL
PROGRAM OPERATING FOR FAMILIES
IN NEED. THE L.A. FOOD BANK ALSO
SUPPORTS PERMANENTLY AUTHORIZING
THE EMERGENCY FOOD BANK RESERVE.
ITEM ONE THE L.A. WHILE L.A.
COUNTY HASN'T NEEDED TO UTILIZE
THE RESERVE, A DISASTER CAN
HAPPEN AT ANY TIME. OUR
RESOURCES ARE ALREADY STRETCHED
THIN. ANY DISASTER WOULD STRAIN
OUR ABILITY TO SERVE. WE URGE
YOU TO SUPPORT THE FOOD BANK
RESERVE SO THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN
OUR PROGRAMS WHILE PROVIDING
EMERGENCY RELIEF DURING DISASTER
. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HI,
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
KELLY LONGO FLORES WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FOOD
BANKS. WE WORK ALONGSIDE 41 FOOD
BANKS LIKE CHRIS'S ACROSS THE
STATE WITH THE MISSION TO END
HUNGER, AND WE KNOW, AS WE HEARD
FROM BECKY, DISASTERS CAN IMPACT
ANY OF US OR ANY OF OUR FAMILIES
AT ANY TIME WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.
CHANGE MAKING DISASTERS MUCH
MORE FREQUENT, WE HAVE A NEW
NORMAL. WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTING SUPPORT FOR THE
PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION OF THE
EMERGENCY FOOD BANK RESERVE,
WHICH HAS ALREADY PROVEN TO BE
INVALUABLE FOR COUNTLESS
COMMUNITIES. COMMUNITIES ON THE
FRONT LINES OF DISASTER RESPONSE
. WE ARE ALSO HERE IN FULL
SUPPORT OF DIAPER BANK FUNDING,
A CRITICAL RESOURCE FOR MANY OF
OUR FOOD BANKS ACROSS THE STATE.
THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS,
SHANE LEVINE, ON BEHALF OF THE
SAN DIEGO FOOD BANK HERE ALSO
FOR ISSUE FOUR, NUMBER TWO,
WE'RE ACTUALLY THE STATE'S, FROM
SAN DIEGO, THE STATE'S FIRST
FUNDED DIAPER BANK. THANKS TO
THE INCREDIBLE ADVOCACY BY
FORMER ASSEMBLY MEMBER LORENA
GONZALEZ FROM SAN DIEGO. THIS
PROGRAM, AS TO DATE, HAS HELPED
THOUSANDS OF LOW INCOME PARENTS
AND GUARDIANS IN SAN DIEGO
COUNTY AND IS DISTRIBUTED OVER
34.5 MILLION DIAPERS. SINCE ITS
INCEPTION. AND AS SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES STATED, THE ASK HERE
IS PRETTY MINIMAL. OUR PROGRAM
RUNS ON ABOUT $1.25 MILLION A
YEAR AND PROVIDES DIAPERS TO
OVER 10,000 INFANTS AND TODDLERS
A MONTH. BASED ON THE 20 2023
NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE AT OUR
DISPOSAL, I REALIZE YOUR JOBS
AREN'T EASY WITH THE CUTS THAT
YOU GUYS ARE HAVING TO CONFRONT.
BUT I I'D SAY THAT THERE'S
PROBABLY NO GREATER MORAL
IMPERATIVE HERE THAN TO HELP THE
STATE'S MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE,
IN OUR INFANTS AND TODDLERS FROM
LOW INCOME FAMILIES WHO NEED
THESE DIAPERS. A COUPLE DATA
POINTS I'D SHARE. ANECDOTALLY,
WE KNOW THAT MANY PARENTS, ARE
HAVING TO FOREGO FOOD IN ORDER
TO BUY DIAPERS. ADDITIONALLY
CHILDREN WITHOUT DIAPERS CAN'T
ATTEND DAYCARE AND WITHOUT
DAYCARE. THESE STRUGGLING
PARENTS ARE HAVING TO STAY HOME
WITH THEIR CHILDREN, RISKING THE
JOBS THEY DESPERATELY NEED, SO
THE CHOICES THESE PARENTS ARE
FACING ARE FRANKLY
INCOMPREHENSIBLE. AND WE'D ASK
THAT YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS
CONTINUING REQUEST. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, KEVIN
BUFALINO WITH SACRAMENTO FOOD
BANK AND FAMILY SERVICES, I'D
LIKE TO JOIN IN WITH MY
COLLEAGUES HERE, ON THE
EMERGENCY FOOD BANK RESERVES
FUND AND FULLY FUNDING THAT
PROGRAM, WE HAVEN'T HAD TO USE
THEM YET AT SACRAMENTO FOOD
BANK, BUT WITH DISASTERS, YOU
NEVER KNOW. AND OUR DEMAND HAS
BEEN STRETCHED THIN OVER THE
PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WITH THE
DEMAND FOR FOOD ASSISTANCE
RISING AND GOVERNMENT FUNDING
AND PRIVATE DONATIONS BOTH
FALLING. SO IF WE DID HAVE A
DISASTER, IT'D BE HARD TO MEET
DEMAND WITHOUT THAT FUND, WE ARE
ALSO A MEMBER OF CALIFORNIA'S
ASSOCIATION OF DIAPER BANKS AND
ONE OF THE STATE FUNDED DIAPER
BANKS. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE
$10 MILLION IN FUNDING CONTINUES
FOR OUR DIAPER BANK. WE'VE
DISTRIBUTED OVER 10 MILLION
DIAPERS IN THE PAST THREE YEARS
HERE IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY, AND
IT IS THE WHAT FAMILIES NEED
RIGHT AFTER FOOD. THE NEXT THING
THEY'RE ASKED FOR OR ASK US FOR
OUR DIAPERS. SO WE'VE BUILT THAT
NETWORK UP TO ALMOST 100
PARTNERS HERE IN SACRAMENTO
COUNTY. IT'S BEEN, IT'S TAKEN US
THREE YEARS. AND WITHOUT THAT
FUNDING, WE'LL HAVE TO CLOSE OUR
DOORS AT THE END OF JUNE SO THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE WILL CRUMBLE. AND
IT'LL BE HARD FOR US TO REBUILD
IF WE MISS OUT ON FUNDING THIS
YEAR. THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHER
PUBLIC COMMENT. THAT IS THE
LAST, HEARING BEFORE MY REVISE.
SO COME BACK POTENTIALLY READY
FOR BLOODSHED AND THE MAY
REVISE, SO WE'LL SEE HOW IT IS.
BUT BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE NUMBER
THREE AND HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES IS CONCLUDED