HELLO. THIS IS THE ASSEMBLY
BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE TWO ON HUMAN
SERVICES ISSUES. TODAY WE'RE
HOLDING OUR FINAL INFORMATION
HEARING OF THIS BUDGET PROCESS.
AND THIS HEARING WILL BE, VERY
TIMELY, A BIT DIFFERENT THAN
OTHER HEARINGS AS WE WELCOME
MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT ASSIGNED TO
SUB TWO BUT HAVE INTEREST AND
CONCERNS WITH THE BUDGET ISSUES
THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING,
THIS CYCLE, AGAIN, IN ORDER TO
ENSURE THAT WE HAVE A JUST
PROCESS WHEN IT COMES TO OUR
SAFETY NET PROGRAMS, A JUST
PROCESS INCLUDES TRANSPARENCY.
IT INCLUDES THE ABILITY TO ASK
AS MANY QUESTIONS AS NECESSARY
SO THAT WE CAN TRULY UNDERSTAND
THE IMPACTS THAT OUR DECISIONS
WILL MAKE. STAFF HAS PREPARED A
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT THAT IS
ATTACHED TO THE VERY BASIC TO
THIS VERY BASIC AGENDA FOR
TODAY. IT INCLUDES SUMMARY
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PLETHORA
OF REDUCTIONS AND PROGRAMING
LIMITATIONS THAT HAVE SATURATED
OUR CONVERSATIONS THIS SPRING,
THERE IS A LOT OF DETAIL BECAUSE
THERE ARE A LOT OF CUTS FACING
SUB TWO. AS I'VE TALKED ABOUT AT
EVERY HEARING THIS YEAR, WE
INTEND TO FIGHT ANY CUT THAT
WILL DESTABILIZE FAMILIES AND
FORCE THEM INTO OR PREVENT THEM
FROM EXITING A STATE OF CRISIS.
WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY IN
CALIFORNIA SINCE THE GRAVE
MISTAKES MADE BY THE GREAT
RECESSION, AND WE HAVE NO
INTENTION OF MAKING THE CALLOUS
AND ILL CONCEIVED MISTAKES OF
THE PAST THAT THRUST PEOPLE INTO
EVEN DEEPER POVERTY AND
HOMELESSNESS. WE ALL KNOW
BETTER, AND NOW WE MUST ALSO BE
BETTER. WE MUST CHOOSE TO DO
BETTER. WE ARE ALSO DEDICATED TO
ENSURING THAT ANY FUNDING
REDUCTIONS ARE FIRST MADE BY
ALIGNING FUNDING TO SERVICE
LEVELS TO PREVENT TO THE
GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE,
REDUCTIONS THAT DIRECTLY HARM
VITAL SERVICES. TODAY'S HEARING
IS HISTORIC, AS MEMBERS WILL
JOIN US TO ASK QUESTIONS AND
HAVE AN OPEN, HONEST DIALOG WITH
THE ADMINISTRATION THÀNH. AND
THEN WE WILL MOVE TO PUBLIC
COMMENT TO ALLOW THE COMMUNITY
TO WEIGH IN AGAIN ON THE ISSUES.
IN THIS AREA, I WILL NOW ASK THE
ADMINISTRATION TO PLEASE HAVE
REPRESENTATIVES WHO CAN ANSWER
MEMBERS QUESTIONS, MOVE TO THE
WITNESS TABLE AND I KNOW PEOPLE
WILL COME IN AND OUT DEPENDING
ON THE ISSUE AREA, AND BE
PREPARED TO DISCUSS THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSALS AND PROGRAM
BACKGROUND. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON
TO MEMBERS QUESTIONS. AND SO
FIRST WE'LL HAVE UP OUR, SOME
OTHER BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS
WHO HAVE TO RUN THEIR OWN
COMMITTEES AS WELL. SO, MEMBER
QUIRK-SILVA, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE
THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE
AT BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE NUMBER
TWO, GOOD AFTERNOON. AND AM
HAPPY TO WEIGH IN ON THE
IMPORTANCE OF CALWORKS AND THE
20 2425 BUDGET. AS YOU HAVE
EXPLORED AND DUG DEEP INTO THIS
BUDGET, YOU ALL ARE INTERFACING
WITH SOME OF THE MOST DRAMATIC
CUTS TO OUR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES.
AND LOOKING OVER THIS, ONE OF
THE MAJOR VALUES THAT WE STATED
AS A CAUCUS MANY TIMES IS TO DO
NO HARM TO DO NO HARM TO OUR OUR
CALIFORNIA FAMILIES THAT WE KNOW
ARE ARE ALREADY STRUGGLING AND
CAN BE PUSHED INTO HOMELESSNESS,
AND MANY OTHER DIRE STRAITS. I
APPLAUD THE GOVERNOR FOR
PROPOSING TO PURSUE THE NEW
FEDERAL TANF, PROGRAM. TEMPORARY
ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES
PILOTS TO TEST ALTERNATIVES TO
THE WORK PARTICIPATION RATE.
WPWR. THE WPWR IS PROVEN TO BE A
FAILED MEASURE ROOTED IN RACIST
AND SEXIST STEREOTYPES OF WOMEN
OF COLOR. AND IT IS TIME FOR A
CHANGE. AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN
PURSUING THE PILOTS AND TO PUT
FAMILIES AT THE CENTER OF
CALWORKS, I ASK THAT THE
FOLLOWING BE CONSIDERED, AND
NUMBER ONE, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED
CUTS OUTLINED IN THE GOVERNOR'S
JANUARY BUDGET, WHICH THREATENED
TO UNDERMINE THE EFFICACY OF THE
PILOTS AND ENHANCING FAMILY
OUTCOMES. BUILD ON THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO PURSUE
THE TO ANF PILOTS BY MAKING KEY
POLICY REFORM. REFORM AIMED AT
CENTERING CALWORKS AROUND FAMILY
INTEGRATING TRAUMA INFORMED
APPROACHES AND FOLLOWING
EVIDENCE BASED STRATEGIES TO
BUILD REAL PATHWAYS OUT OF
POVERTY. MR. CHAIR, I HAVE
SHARED DRAFT LANGUAGE WITH YOU
AND YOUR STAFF, AND I'M HAPPY TO
WORK WITH YOU ON THIS ISSUE
MOVING FORWARD. AS I CHAIR NOW,
SOME FIVE OF WE KNOW THAT THERE
IS WORK TO DO IN OUR BUDGET
ACROSS ALL SECTORS, BUT WE
CANNOT BALANCE THIS BUDGET ON
THE BACKS OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE
CALIFORNIANS. THANK YOU FOR
HAVING ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
NOW WE'LL HAVE, DOCTOR ARAMBULA,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE NEXT? THANK
YOU, CHAIR JACKSON. I'D ALSO
LIKE TO THANK CHAIR GABRIEL FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND
TODAY'S MEETING. I WILL
APPRECIATE NICOLE VASQUEZ AND
THE HEARING AGENDA TODAY AS I
LOOK FORWARD TO READING EVERY
WORD OF IT AGAIN AND APPRECIATE
YOUR CHARACTERIZATION AND MAKING
SURE THAT WE FOCUSED ON THE
PEOPLE AND NOT SIMPLY JUST THE
NUMBERS. A BUDGET IS A
REFLECTION OF OUR VALUE, AND YOU
WILL SEE OUR VALUES PRESENT IN
MANY OF THE PREVIOUS BUDGETS.
THIS MAY REVISION, UNFORTUNATELY
FOR MANY OF US, IS UNACCEPTABLE.
WHILE THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY
CUTS THAT WILL HURT OUR
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AND WILL
ULTIMATELY CUT OR STARVE THE
PROGRAMS IN OUR SAFETY NET, WHAT
WE NEED TO HAVE IS COURAGE FOR A
CHANGE, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
NOT SIMPLY FOCUSING ON THE MATH.
WE'VE HEARD FROM SO MANY THAT
THE MATH IS NOT MAPPING, BUT WE
MUST FOCUS ON THE IMPACTS THAT
HAPPEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
RELIANT UPON THESE PROGRAMS. I
WILL REMIND YOU THAT THESE
DOLLARS ARE THE PEOPLE'S DOLLARS
, AND WE'RE HERE IN THE PEOPLE'S
HOUSE. AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THE
PEOPLE'S WORK. AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO HEARING THE PEOPLE
TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
ALLOWING ME TO PARTICIPATE. ANY
OTHER MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I WANT TO
ECHO THE WORDS OF MY COLLEAGUES
THAT HAVE JUST SPOKEN. IT GIVES
ME HOPE BECAUSE AS I WATCH AND
LOOK AT OTHER MEMBERS COME IN TO
SPEAK TODAY, TO SHARE THEIR
CONCERNS AND THEIR ADVOCACY FOR
THIS ISSUE HERE TELLS ME THAT
MANY OF US HAVE CONCERNS. AND IN
YOUR OPENING REMARKS, YOU TALKED
ABOUT FIGHTING. AND I ALSO AGREE
THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO
FIGHT. NOT ONLY AM I ADVOCATING
FOR MANY OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES
PROGRAMS THAT ARE BEING CUT, BUT
CLEARLY ONE OF THE AREAS THAT
I'M MOST PASSIONATE ABOUT IS THE
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES PROGRAM. AND THE
RATE DELAY THAT WAS BEING
PROPOSED, DELAYING THAT ALSO
MISSES OUT ON SOME FEDERAL
MATCHING FUNDS THAT WE COULD USE
MORE SO NOW THAN EVER BEFORE.
THIS COMMUNITY HAS BEEN NOT ONLY
IGNORED, BUT ALSO UNREPRESENTED
AND UNDERREPRESENTED FOR
DECADES. NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO
DELAY. THIS NOW IS NOT THE TIME
TO PUSH THEM ASIDE. NOW IS NOT
THE TIME TO SAY THAT THEY NEED
TO CONTINUE TO WAIT. AND I'M
WITH YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND I THINK
MANY OF US ARE WITH YOU HERE AND
READY TO FIGHT WITH YOU, I, I,
YOU KNOW, WANT TO SAY THAT THIS
IS MORE IMPORTANT AND ABOVE ALL
OF US, BECAUSE THIS IS THE
PEOPLE'S DOLLARS. THIS IS ALL
ABOUT THE PEOPLE. THIS IS ABOUT
PEOPLE THAT CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE
EVERY SINGLE DAY. SO I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR THE FIGHT, MR.
CHAIR. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING US ALL TO BE HERE. AND
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
CHAMPIONING THIS. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MEMBER BACH THÀNH. THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIR, AND, EVERYONE, FOR
BEING HERE. I THINK IT'S SO
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT WE HAVE
THIS CONVERSATION AND OBVIOUSLY
WE'RE ALL FULLY AWARE OF THE
BUDGET SITUATION WE'RE IN, AND
IT'S NOT EASY. AND SO THEN THE
QUESTION COMES DOWN TO HOW DO WE
SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS? AND I
THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE HEARING
LOUD AND CLEAR FROM MY
COLLEAGUES AND I WANT TO ECHO
THEIR STATEMENTS, IS THAT IT IS
SO INCUMBENT UPON US THAT WE DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO NOT IMPACT
THOSE WHO ARE MOST VULNERABLE,
THAT THEY SHOULD BE FIRST AND
FOREMOST IN OUR MINDS. AND I
KNOW, THAT THAT IS TRUE FOR US
AS A LEGISLATURE AND ALSO FOR
THE GOVERNOR, THAT WE TAKE CARE
OF THE PEOPLE WHO MOST NEED
CALIFORNIA'S SUPPORT. AND I
REALLY WANT TO THANK, THE CHAIR,
FOR ALLOWING WOMEN'S CAUCUS
MEMBERS TO BE HERE TO SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF THE WOMEN OF
CALIFORNIA, SINCE I JOINED THE
LEGISLATURE, WE HAVE GONE FROM A
QUARTER WOMEN TO ALMOST HALF
WOMEN IN THE LEGISLATURE. AND
THE CONVERSATIONS HAVE SHIFTED
AS A RESULT. AND ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I CAME HERE TODAY TO
TALK ABOUT WAS CHILD CARE. AS WE
KNOW, THE PANDEMIC RESULTED IN
MASSIVE NUMBERS OF WOMEN LEAVING
THE WORKFORCE. NOT ONLY IS THAT
DIRE AS IT RELATES TO EQUITY,
BUT ALSO OUR ECONOMY. WE NEED
WOMEN IN THE WORKFORCE IN ORDER
FOR OUR ECONOMY TO THRIVE. AND
AS A MOTHER OF THREE YOUNG
CHILDREN, I KNOW FIRSTHAND, AS
I'M SURE MOST PEOPLE IN THE ROOM
DO, WITHOUT CHILD CARE, WE
CANNOT SHOW UP AT WORK. AND SO
BEFORE OUR CHILDREN ENTER THE
PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, WE HAVE TO
HAVE ACCESS TO CHILD CARE. AND
FOR SO MANY WOMEN, THEY ARE
LEAVING THE WORKFORCE BECAUSE
THEY DON'T MAKE ENOUGH TO COVER
THEIR CHILD CARE. THEY MAKE LESS
THAN THE COST OF CHILD CARE IN
CALIFORNIA. AND SO THEY DO THE
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND THEY LEAVE
THE WORKFORCE. AND SO, YOU KNOW,
I REALLY THINK IT IS SO
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE
MAKE THE LONG TERM INVESTMENT IN
WOMEN AND WOMEN WORKING BOTH FOR
EQUITY GOALS, BUT ALSO FOR
ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE STATE.
AND SO I REALLY WANTED TO TOUCH
ON SOME OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN
THE PROPOSAL AS IT RELATES TO
WOMEN AND TO CHILD CARE, BECAUSE
I THINK IT'S SO, SO IMPORTANT
THAT WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION
IN THIS FORUM AND SO I
APPRECIATE THE CHAIR ALLOWING US
TO ASK QUESTIONS. BUT AND SOME
OF THESE QUESTIONS I'M ASKING ON
BEHALF OF THE WOMEN'S CAUCUS, SO
BEAR WITH ME. BUT I KNOW THAT
THERE'S SOME OPPORTUNITY TO
UTILIZE, FEDERAL CHILDCARE
DOLLARS AND DEVELOPMENTAL BLOCK
GRANTS, WHICH THE LOSS MADE $89
MILLION TO CONTINUE FORWARD
PROGRESS ON EXPANDING ACCESS TO
FAMILIES WITH ADDITIONAL SPACES.
AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I THINK THE CONCERN WAS IN
SOME OF THESE CUTS WAS THAT
WE'RE GOING BACK ON SOME OF THE
PROMISES WE MADE TO EXPAND
ACCESS TO CHILDCARE, AND THAT'S
REALLY SOMETHING THAT I KNOW THE
WOMEN'S CAUCUS IS DEVOTED TO
ENSURING DOESN'T HAPPEN. SO IF
YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT QUESTION
AROUND THOSE, DOLLARS THAT MAY
BE AVAILABLE, THAT WOULD BE
GREAT. GOOD AFTERNOON, KIM
JOHNSON, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES, AND
APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THE WOMEN'S
CAUCUS AND THE CHAMPION OF
CHILDCARE AND EARLY EDUCATION
ISSUES. SO THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
MAY REVISION PROPOSES TO PAUSE
THE 200,000 SUBSIDIES THAT WERE
PUT FORWARD. WE HAVE 119,000 OF
THOSE 200,000 REALIZED, AND
AGAIN, THERE'S ESSENTIALLY A
PROPOSED DELAY IN CONTINUING THE
SLOTS IN BUDGET YEAR AND BUDGET
YEAR PLUS ONE. THAT'S THE
PROPOSAL THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE
IN THE GOVERNOR'S MAY REVISION.
JACKIE ROSA WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST OFFICE, SINCE YOU
MENTIONED THE FIGURE THAT WE HAD
IN OUR REPORT, WE IDENTIFIED IN
APRIL THE POTENTIAL FOR $89
MILLION IN UNSPENT CCDF DOLLARS,
A COMBINATION OF UNSPENT, BUT
THEN ALSO ANTICIPATED YET NOT
RECEIVED NEW MONEY DUE TO A
RECENT FEDERAL INCREASE, BASED
OFF OF THE MAY REVISION, IT
SEEMS LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION
ALREADY INCLUDES SAVINGS
ASSOCIATED WITH, USING THOSE,
$108 MILLION OF UNSPENT CDF AND
OFFSETTING GENERAL FUND. HOWEVER
WITHIN THE BUDGET THERE IS STILL
A PROJECTED $71 MILLION OF CDF
THAT WILL GO UNSPENT THAT THEY
HAVE NOT RE OBLIGATED YET.
THOSE, DOLLARS ARE ONE TIME IN
ADDITION THEY THE BUDGET STILL
DOES NOT INCLUDE THOSE
ANTICIPATED ONGOING CDF
INCREASES THAT COULD RANGE
BETWEEN 60 MILLION TO 77
MILLION. THOSE DOLLARS ARE
ONGOING. DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND
TO THAT? THAT'D BE GOOD
AFTERNOON, JENNIFER TROY, ON
BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, WE DON'T
ANTICIPATE HAVING ANY UNSPENT
CDF FEDERAL CHILD CARE FUNDING.
THAT IS THE EXISTING POT OF
FUNDING. AS MISS BAROCIO WAS
POINTING OUT, THERE IS AN
ALLOCATION THAT HAPPENS AND
SOMETIMES THERE'S REALLOCATION.
BUT WE ARE NOT CONCERNED THAT WE
WILL BE UNABLE TO REALLOCATE
THAT FUNDING. MISS BAROCIO DID
ACKNOWLEDGE, AND WE WOULD AS
WELL, THAT THERE IS AN
ANTICIPATED $60 MILLION IN NEW
CDF FUNDING. WE HAVE NOT YET
RECEIVED THAT AS AN OFFICIAL
AWARD OR A FINAL AMOUNT FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. OKAY. AND I
THINK ALL OF US I CAN SAY THAT
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE MAXIMIZE
THE USE OF THOSE DOLLARS JUST
BEFORE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ARE I BELIEVE, WHAT IS OUR
EXPECTATION AS A CAUCUS IS TO
ENSURE THAT IF THERE ARE FEDERAL
FUNDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR
CHILD CARE, THAT THEY'RE NOT
BEING USED TO BACKFILL GENERAL
FUND, BUT THEY'RE BEING USED AS
INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE
INCREASING THOSE SLOTS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE. IS THAT ALSO THE
ADMINISTRATION POSITION, THE
FEDERAL, THE FEDERAL FUNDING
REQUIRES US TO SUPPLEMENT AND
NOT SUPPLANT GENERAL FUND, AND
OUR PROPOSALS ARE CONSISTENT
WITH THAT REQUIREMENT. OKAY
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, FOR THAT.
ONE OTHER QUESTION ON CHILD
CARE. I KNOW THAT THERE'S, A
FACILITY IN MY DISTRICT, IN
PLEASANTON THAT RECEIVED GRANT
MONEY FROM INFRASTRUCTURE, CHILD
CARE, INFRASTRUCTURE, GRANT
MONEY, ABOUT $71,000. WHEN WE,
WE MADE THAT TAXABLE. SO THEY
ARE NOW BEING CHARGED $23,000 IN
TAXES ON THAT STRAIGHT GRANT
MONEY THAT THEY RECEIVED, WHICH
SEEMS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
GOALS OF THE GRANT PROGRAM AND
AS I UNDERSTAND, MAY HAVE BEEN
AN OVERSIGHT, BUT I THINK THAT
IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT
TO THE EXTENT THAT WE PROVIDED
THESE SMALL BUSINESS WITH
INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS, FROM THE
COVID MONEY, THAT WE NOT TAX IT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY WANTS
TO WEIGH IN ON THESE SMALL
BUSINESSES RECEIVING THESE TAX
BILLS AS OF LATE, GLAD TO FOLLOW
UP WITH YOU ON THAT ITEM. WE
DON'T HAVE A RESPONSE RIGHT AT
THE MOMENT. GLAD TO FOLLOW UP ON
THAT ITEM. THANK YOU. BECAUSE I
KNOW I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE IN THE
STATE WHO'S SMALL BUSINESSES ARE
RECEIVING THESE TAX BILLS, SO I
KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT. DO YOU HAVE
ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THIS, WE'VE
HEARD ABOUT IT, AND WE'RE HAPPY
TO ALSO CHECK IN WITH THE
DEPARTMENT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
THE TAX IMPLICATIONS, BUT ALSO
THE POTENTIAL OF, IN FUTURE
YEARS OF GRANT DOLLARS WERE TO
BE PROVIDED IF THERE'S A WAY TO
EXEMPT IT, IF I COULD CHAIR, I
WOULD WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON YOUR
SAVINGS CLARIFICATION. IF I
COULD, CURRENTLY, THE IDENTIFIED
UNSPENT DOLLARS THEY ARE BEING
USED TO OFFSET GENERAL FUND
COSTS. I THINK THERE'S A
QUESTION AGAIN OF THOSE
ANTICIPATED, YET WE HAVE NOT
RECEIVED FUNDING, AND IT'S NOT
BUILT INTO THE BUDGET THAT $60
MILLION. BUT I JUST WANTED TO
CLARIFY THAT OF THE SAVINGS THAT
WERE SCORING DUE TO UNSPENT
DOLLARS, THEY'RE BEING USED TO
OFFSET GENERAL FUND WHEN IN
ESSENCE. SO BASICALLY WE COULD
BE USING THOSE FEDERAL FUNDS TO
EXPAND SLOTS. BUT WE'RE CHOOSING
NOT TO WE'RE THE PROPOSAL IS
JUST TO BACKFILL THE GENERAL
FUND. I WILL FLAG THOUGH, THOSE
SAVINGS ARE ONE TIME WHERE THE
SLOTS ARE ONGOING. SO WHILE WE
MAY BE ABLE TO SUPPORT SLOT
COSTS FOR THE BUDGET YEAR, IF
THOSE SAVINGS WERE USED TO, THEN
SHIFT THE GENERAL FUND OFFSETS
TO SUPPORT THAT, WE WOULD THE
GENERAL FUND WILL STILL NEED TO
PICK UP THE COST IN THE OUT
YEARS, ONCE THOSE ONE TIME
SAVINGS EXPIRE. OKAY, NUMBER
ONE, LÀ, I WANT TO MAKE SURE,
PARTICULARLY ON THE TAX ISSUE,
IF ONCE WE GET SOME
CLARIFICATION, I'M GOING TO ASK
FOR SOME TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
THAT WE CAN USE TO ENSURE THAT
THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN,
AND PREVENT ANY FUTURE TAXATIONS
ON CLEARLY WHAT IT. I'M SURE
THIS IS NOT WHAT WE INTENDED TO
HAPPEN, BUT WE NEED TO CLOSE
THAT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. LAST
QUESTION. SO I JUST WANT TO ECHO
SOME OF WHAT WE'VE SAID AND WHAT
I SAID IN MY OPENING REMARKS,
WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK
WE'RE ALL VERY FOCUSED ON THESE
PROPOSALS TO CUT CHILD CARE AND
CALWORKS IN THE MAY REVISION.
AND AND, YOU KNOW, OUR FEAR IN
LARGE PART, THAT IS THAT IT
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS
CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES AND
THE MOST VULNERABLE CALIFORNIANS
, AND TO BE SPECIFIC, WOMEN OF
COLOR, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT'S
THE LAST THING WE WANT,
ESPECIALLY AS A MEMBER OF THE
WOMEN'S CAUCUS. SO I JUST WANTED
TO ASK THE ADMINISTRATION,
THÀNH, WHETHER YOU'VE TAKEN A
LOOK AT THE IMPACTS THESE CUTS
WILL HAVE COLLECTIVELY ON
WORKING WOMEN, WOMEN OF COLOR,
AND THOSE WHO DEPEND SO DEEPLY
ON OUR SERVICES AND WHETHER IT
WILL IMPACT ISSUES LIKE
HOMELESSNESS FOR THIS VERY
VULNERABLE POPULATION. THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTION. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, AGAIN, I WOULD JUST SAY
THIS, WE COMPLETELY APPRECIATE
THE POINT, RELATED TO THE
PROPOSED IMPACT OF THE MAY
REVISION CUTS WE HAVE SHARED
WITH THE COMMITTEE THE SPECIFICS
OF THE NUMBERS, OF FAMILIES,
INDIVIDUALS IMPACTED AS
PROPOSED. WHAT I WOULD ALSO SAY
IS THERE ARE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL
INVESTMENTS THAT WE HAVE
COLLECTIVELY MADE BETWEEN THE
GOVERNOR AND THE ADMINISTRATION
AND THIS LEGISLATIVE BODY TO
CONTINUE STRENGTHENING SUPPORTS
AND SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES THAT REMAINED. THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS, HIGHLIGHTED
IN A FEW DIFFERENT PLACES THAT,
ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO
ECONOMIC SUPPORTS, IMMEDIATE
CASH. WE HAVE A PROPOSED GRANT
INCREASE PROPOSED IN THIS MAY
REVISION BUDGET FOR CALWORKS, WE
HAVE A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL
SERVICES, GUARANTEED INCOME
PILOTS, A LOT OF NEW NEWLY NEW
INVESTMENTS THAT ARE WILL STILL
REMAIN, POST THIS, WHATEVER,
WHEREVER WE LAND IN THE BUDGET.
SO I WOULD JUST POINT THAT THERE
HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS AND
UNPRECEDENTED AMOUNT OF
INVESTMENT IN CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES OVER THE LAST SEVERAL
YEARS THAT WE'VE MADE TOGETHER.
AND YES, WE RECOGNIZE THAT
THERE'S ALSO IMPACT TO THE
PROPOSALS THAT ARE COMING BEFORE
YOU. THANK YOU. AND I HOPE I'M
NOT SPEAKING OUT OF TURN WHEN I
SAY THAT. YOU KNOW, I VIEW THIS
GOVERNOR AS A FEMINIST, AND I
THINK SOME OF THOSE IN
ASSESSMENTS REALLY REFLECT THAT.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT I
JUST I ASK THE QUESTION IN PART
BECAUSE I THINK IT IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT THAT AS WE LOOK TO HOW
WE ARE GOING TO CUT THIS BUDGET
AND AGAIN, WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT
WE NEED TO MAKE CUTS, THAT WE DO
SO WITH A FEMINIST LENS, LOOKING
AT OUR FAMILIES, OUR WOMEN, AND
OUR CHILDREN. AND I APPRECIATE
THAT YOUR COMMITMENT TO DO SO.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO
MR. ALVAREZ SO THAT HE CAN GAVEL
IN HIS BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE AFTER
HIS COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WAS GOING TO
ASK ABOUT THE TAXATION ISSUE. I
THINK IT'S SOMETHING DEFINITELY
LIKE TO SEE THE RESPONSE ON
THAT. SO I APPRECIATE OUR
COLLEAGUES ALREADY RAISING THAT,
THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE,
IT DOES RELATE TO THE WORK IN
OUR SUBCOMMITTEE. IT IS A DSS
PROGRAM, BUT IT'S LEGAL
SERVICES, IMMIGRATION, LEGAL
SERVICES PROVIDED AT CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIVERSITY, THE PROGRAM IS
BEING, DRASTICALLY, CUT COMPARED
TO, èC AND, COMMUNITY COLLEGES,
THE PROPORTION OF CUT OR THE
PROPORTION OF FUNDING GOING
FORWARD IS VERY, OFF BALANCE. IT
DOESN'T APPEAR TO REFLECT THE
REALITY OF THE NUMBER OF
STUDENTS THAT COULD BE SERVED
AND THAT HAVE BEEN SERVED, SO I
WOULD ASK, I HAVE ASKED BEFORE
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A
RESPONSE ON WHY THE CSU LEGAL
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES WERE
MORE, CUT TO THE LEVEL OF EQUAL
LEVEL OF èC WHEN THE NUMBER OF
STUDENTS SERVED IS DIFFERENT.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A RESPONSE FOR
THAT? THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. I'LL DEFER TO MY,
COLLEAGUES AT DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE FOR MORE HERE, BUT WOULD
JUST ALSO NOTE, WHILE THE
PROPOSALS ARE SPECIFIC IN THE
CSU IMMIGRATION LEGAL SPACE, WE
WILL CONTINUE SOME IMMIGRATION
SERVICES, LEGAL SERVICES,
FUNDING THAT COULD BE AVAILABLE
TO THE POPULATION. WE RECOGNIZE
THAT THE DEDICATED FUNDING ON
COLLEGE CAMPUSES WOULDN'T BE THE
SAME AS IT IS AS AS CURRENTLY
PROPOSED, BUT WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
THAT SOME OF THOSE LEGAL
SERVICES WOULD REMAIN AVAILABLE.
I'LL DEFER TO MY COLLEAGUES.
CORRECT. AND BEFORE YOU RESPOND,
THOUGH, WE'RE KEEPING COMMUNITY
COLLEGES AT THE SAME LEVEL AND
èC AT THE SAME LEVEL. THERE ARE
NO CUTS ASSOCIATED TO THOSE, BUT
AT CSU WE ARE MAKING THE CUTS.
SO, WHY THE DIFFERENCE IN TERMS
OF TREATING THE SYSTEMS
DIFFERENTLY? THANK YOU. AND,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. SO,
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, WE DID
PROPOSE TO CUT THE CSU FUNDING
TO BETTER ALIGN WITH THE FUNDING
ALLOCATED TO UCS. SO THERE IS NO
CHANGES TO THAT, CUT AT MAY
REVISION. YOU YOU CONTINUE TO
CUT CSU TO THE $1.8 MILLION
FIGURE, WHICH IS THE èC FIGURE.
CORRECT. AND MY QUESTION HAD
BEEN PREVIOUSLY AND CONTINUES TO
BE WITH THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS
AT CSU WHO RECEIVE SERVICES
BEING SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN
èC. YOU GOT 10,000 UNDOCUMENTED
STUDENTS AT THE CSU LEVEL. WE'VE
GOT 3500 AT UC, TRIPLE THE
NUMBER OF STUDENTS. SAME FUNDING
WON'T GO AS FAR. SO IS THERE A
RATIONALE FOR WHY IT WAS REDUCED
AGAIN AS PART OF THE LARGER
BUDGET? PICTURE? THIS SOLUTION
WAS PROPOSED TO ASSIST IN
ADDRESSING THE BUDGET SHORTFALL.
BUT AS WITH THE OTHER CUTS
PROPOSED, WE'RE OPEN TO HEARING
ANY ALTERNATIVES THAT THE
LEGISLATURE AND THEIR STAFF
HAVE. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE
WAS NO REASON THÀNH IT WAS JUST
REDUCED JUST BECAUSE UC WAS AT
THAT LEVEL. THERE'S NO RATIONALE
FOR THAT. WELL, THE RATIONALE
WAS TO BETTER ALIGN WITH THE
FUNDING ALLOCATED TO THE UCS.
OKAY. WELL, I WOULD I WOULD
SUGGEST THAT TO BETTER ALIGN TO
THE LEVEL OF FUNDING FOR THE UCS
AS WE MAKE IT PROPORTIONAL. SO
IF UC IS AT 1.8 AND IT SERVES
ONE THIRD OF THE STUDENTS AT CSU
SERVES, THEN WE SHOULD HAVE
THREE TIMES THE FUNDING FOR, CSU
IN ORDER TO BE ALIGNED TO THE
NUMBER OF STUDENTS BEING SERVED.
GIVEN THAT, IMMIGRATION CASES
TAKE MANY YEARS. AND SO I
APPRECIATE THAT THERE'S
CONTINUED FUNDING, BUT, THESE
CASES REQUIRE SUPPORT FOR YEARS
BEYOND WHEN THEY INITIATE. AND
SO IT'D BE GOOD TO BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE THAT. I DON'T WANT TO I
DON'T WANT TO FIND OURSELVES.
WE'RE HALFWAY THROUGH NEXT YEAR.
AND BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF
FUNDING, WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT SOMEONE WITH THEIR CASE.
IMMIGRATION CASE. SO I WOULD
REQUEST THAT THAT GET REVIEWED
PRIOR TO US ADOPTING BUDGET.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU,
NEXT WE'LL HAVE SANTIAGO, THEN,
DOCTOR BANES AND THEN MR.
CARRILLO, AND THEN MISS ORTEGA.
YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
US TO BE ON THIS SUBCOMMITTEE,
FOR THE DAY. AND ALSO, THE
SPEAKER WHO MADE ROOM FOR THOSE
VOICES WHO HAVE BEEN VERY WHO
HAVE BEEN PROPONENTS OF SOME OF
THE OR SCALING BACK SOME OF THE
CUTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED. I
WANTED TO ADD MY VOICE TO THE
ISSUE OF CHILD CARE, BECAUSE I
THINK IT IMPACTS AN ENTIRE
FAMILY, AND CERTAINLY IN THE
AREAS THAT I REPRESENT AND THE
LA REGION, CUTTING BACK ON CHILD
CARE WILL HAVE DEVASTATING
EFFECTS ON FAMILIES WHO HAVE
BEEN TRYING TO RECOVER, I ALSO
WANT TO ECHO ONE OF THE COMMENTS
THAT, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES FROM
THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, HAD
SAID, BECAUSE IT'S TRUE THAT
THAT A BUDGET IS A REFLECTION OF
VALUES, AND SOME OF THESE CUTS
DON'T REFLECT THE BEST OF VALUES
OF WHO WE ARE AS CALIFORNIANS.
NOW, I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT IT'S
A NUMBERS GAME, AND I RECOGNIZE
THAT IT HAS TO PENCIL OUT. BUT
IN PENCILING OUT, WE SHOULD
REFLECT THOSE VALUES THAT WE
ALWAYS SAY WE SUPPORT IN
CALIFORNIA. AND THE CURRENT
PROPOSAL DOESN'T. AND WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT $400 MILLION. I
MENTIONED CHILD CARE, AND I
AGREE WITH THE OTHER ISSUES THAT
HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. 400
MILLION TO CAL WORKS. WE'RE
TALKING THE POOREST OF THE
POOREST FAMILIES. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 8.25 MILLION TO
L.A. COUNTY'S PUBLIC HEALTH
NURSING PROGRAM. AND NOTHING'S
BEEN MORE IMPORTANT. AND IF WE
HAVEN'T LEARNED ANYTHING SINCE
COVID, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 30
MILLION TO THE FAMILY URGENT
RESPONSE SYSTEM, WHICH I BELIEVE
MY COLLEAGUE, WAS A PROGRAM THAT
HE HAD HELPED SET UP, AND WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT 34 MILLION TO THE
HEALTH CARE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN
IN FOSTER CARE. I MEAN, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
VICTIMS NOW. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR THAT HAVE
BEEN DEVASTATED, AND WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN, AND
WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT, I
MEAN, FOSTER CARE KIDS. THAT'S
NOT THE REFLECTION OF CALIFORNIA
VALUES AND THE CALIFORNIA THAT I
KNOW. CERTAINLY. AND I THINK IT
WOULD DO WELL FOR THIS HOUSE AND
THE ADMINISTRATION TO TAKE A
PAUSE AND SAY, OUT OF A 300
BILLION AND I USE ROUNDED
NUMBERS, A BUDGET CLOSE TO $300
BILLION, $300 BILLION FOR SOME
OF THE CUTS THAT ARE BEING
PROPOSED IN THIS COMMITTEE ARE
THE ONE THAT I HAVE SET THIS
COMMITTEE JURISDICTION OR THE
ONE THAT I'VE SAID ARE WORTH
SAVING. I MEAN, YOU REALLY COULD
TAKE A LOOK AT THEM AND SAY IN A
LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS, THERE
REALLY ARE BUDGET DUST, AND THEY
DON'T REFLECT THE VALUES OF
CALIFORNIA FOR ANY OF THE THINGS
THAT ANY OF US HAVE SAID, ANY OF
THE PRESENTATIONS THAT WE HAVE
HAVE SAID, ANY OF THE SPEECHES
THAT ANY OF US HAVE EVER DONE.
AND THERE'S A BIG DISCONNECT
THERE. WHILE I RECOGNIZE THERE'S
GOING TO BE SOME TOUGH DECISIONS
TO MAKE, AND I AND I RECOGNIZE
HOW DIFFICULT THAT'S GOING TO
BE, I WOULD STILL PAUSE AND PUSH
BACK VERY HARD ON A BUDGET THAT
IS CLOSE TO $300 BILLION. HOW
ANYONE CAN THINK ON PLANET EARTH
THAT WE CAN CUT IN THE MOST
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES. FOSTER
CARE. FOSTER. SORRY I GET A
LITTLE EMOTIONAL ABOUT IT.
FOSTER. FOSTER KIDS. I MEAN, WHO
CAN DO THAT AND BE OKAY WITH IT?
CAL WORKS. NURSE. YOU KNOW
FAMILY URGENT RESPONSE SYSTEMS.
I MEAN, SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS.
AND I'M MUDDLING IT UP. I MEAN,
IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY AT
NIGHT IN A FOSTER CARE KIT HAS
SOMETHING THAT THAT IS HAPPENING
IN THAT FAMILY, WE WOULD, IN
EFFECT, CUT ANY ABILITY FOR THAT
FAMILY TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE
COUNTY, TO GET SERVICES TO THAT
FAMILY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
NIGHT. WHAT IS IT? LET'S SAY THE
FOSTER KID IS IN TROUBLE. WHAT
WOULD THEY DO? JUST HOPE
EVERYTHING GETS BETTER IN THE
NEXT 12 HOURS WITH NOWHERE TO
CALL. I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF THE
LENS THAT I LOOK AT IT WHEN WE
HAVE CLOSE TO $300 BILLION IN A
IN A BUDGET, AND IF OUR VALUES
ARE REFLECTED IN A BUDGET, THEN
I PROBABLY WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE
LOOKED TO PROPOSE ANY CUTS IN
THE MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES.
THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER SPACES
THAT COULD THERE COULD BE CUTS.
I FEEL VERY, VERY STRONGLY ABOUT
IT, AND I KNOW THIS COMMITTEE
FEELS VERY STRONGLY IN OUR
HOUSE, FEELS VERY STRONGLY ABOUT
IT. BUT THIS BUDGET HAS TO
REFLECT OUR VALUES. AND I KNOW
IT'S TOUGH AND I KNOW, YOU KNOW,
YOU JUST HAPPEN TO BE HERE. SO
YOU HAPPEN TO HEAR THIS RIGHT?
BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY CAN
MAKE SOME OF THESE CUTS
WILLINGLY TO BALANCE A NUMBER ON
A BUDGET AND SLEEP OKAY AT
NIGHT. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO
IMAGINE THAT IT REALLY IS. AND
IT PAINS ME TO EVEN HAVE TO
CONSIDER THAT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DOCTOR BAINS, THANK YOU SO MUCH,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER SANTIAGO, FOR
SHARING THAT, BECAUSE, I MEAN,
WE ARE ALL CONCERNED OVER THE
PAST SEVERAL WEEKS, A LOT OF US
IN THE ASSEMBLY ARE VERY, VERY
CONCERNED WITH EXACTLY WHAT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SANTIAGO JUST
SAID. THERE ARE CUTS IN PLACES
THAT THERE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE
CANNOT BE. THAT IS NOT
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VALUES OF
CALIFORNIA. WE CARE ABOUT OUR
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. WE CARE
ABOUT PEOPLE THAT NEED US, AND
WE ARE THERE FOR THEM. THIS
PROPOSAL LITERALLY TELLS
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES YOU DON'T
MATTER TO US. THERE ARE
DEFINITELY OTHER PLACES THAT WE
CAN CUT FUNDS FROM CUTTING $111
MILLION TO SENIOR NUTRITION
PROGRAMS. WHAT ARE OUR SENIORS
GOING TO EAT? OUR SENIORS ARE
ONE OF THE MOST VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES OUT THERE. OUR AGING
POPULATION IS INCREASING AND
WE'RE CUTTING 111, 111 MILLION
FOR SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAMS.
WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO EAT? DO
WE NOT CARE ABOUT OUR SENIORS IN
CALIFORNIA? NHÀ WHAT ABOUT
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS? WE
KNOW VERY WELL THAT OUR AGING
POPULATION IS THE INCREASING
BASE FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE RIGHT
NOW. WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT
EITHER. ELDER JUSTICE DEEP CUTS
TO ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES,
ELDERLY ABUSE IS ON THE RISE.
GUYS, DO WE NOT CARE ABOUT
TAKING CARE OF OUR SENIORS? THIS
DOES NOT DO IT. AND AS THE CHAIR
OF AGING LONG TERM CARE, I AM
EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED. AND WHAT
I SAW ON THIS REVISE CALIFORNIA
DOES CARE FOR ITS VULNERABLE
POPULATION, AND WE AS A
LEGISLATURE WILL MAKE SURE THAT
WE WILL CHALLENGE EVERYTHING
THAT TAKES AWAY THINGS FROM
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, DOCTOR BAINS. MR.
CARRILLO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANKS FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE
HERE IN WHAT'S BEEN MENTIONED BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER SANTIAGO AND
DOCTOR BAINS. RURAL COMMUNITIES,
LIKE THE ONES THAT I REPRESENT,
THE HIGH DESERT AND THE CENTRAL
VALLEY, WHEN THINGS ARE NOT AS
DIRE AS THEY ARE TODAY,
RESOURCES ARE JUST NOT EQUALLY
DISTRIBUTED EITHER. SO THIS IS
EVEN A BIGGER CONCERN. AND I
WONDER IF THERE IS A PLAN THAT
WILL SHOW OUR COMMUNITIES HOW
THESE CUTS ARE GOING TO OCCUR.
IF IT'S GOING TO BE BASED ON
POPULATION, IT'S A POPULATION ON
THE URBAN AREAS. ARE THEY GOING
TO GET WHAT'S LEFT? WHAT'S GOING
TO HAPPEN TO THOSE RURAL AREAS
THAT I REPRESENT IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY, TOO? BECAUSE AGAIN, EVEN
WHEN THINGS ARE OKAY, WE STILL
DON'T GET THE RESOURCES THAT WE
DESERVE BECAUSE WE ALSO
CONTRIBUTE TO THE STATE'S
ECONOMY. SO I WONDER IF THERE IS
A PLAN THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO
DISTRIBUTE TO THOSE AGENCIES,
FOR DAY CARE FOR CALFRESH, FOR
ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT HAVE
BEEN MENTIONED, SENIORS AND ALL
OF THAT, BECAUSE MY FEAR, AGAIN,
IS THAT WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF
RURAL AREAS AND THE CENTRAL
VALLEY, THAT'S GOING TO BE
WORST, I BELIEVE, THAN THE
URBANIZED AREAS, BECAUSE I GET
IT. POPULATION IS THERE. BUT
WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF US IN
THROUGHOUT THROUGHOUT THE STATE?
MY FEAR AGAIN IS THAT THESE
RURAL AREAS IN THE HIGH DESERT
WILL BE THE MOST AFFECTED
BECAUSE WHEN THINGS ARE GOOD,
WITCHES DON'T GET ENOUGH
RESOURCES. SO THERE IS A PLAN
THAT YOU CAN SHOW US SO THAT WE
CAN ANTICIPATE, SO THAT WE CAN,
I DON'T KNOW, PREPARE IF WE CAN,
IF IT'S POSSIBLE. BECAUSE,
AGAIN, WE ARE GOING TO BE THE
ONES THAT ARE GOING TO BE MOST
AFFECTED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU, MISS ORTEGA. I WANT
TO THANK THE CHAIR AND MY
COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR COMMENTS. I
THINK THEY ARE, ARE A REFLECTION
OF OUR FRUSTRATION AND
DISAPPOINTMENT AND THE BUDGET
PROPOSAL THAT WAS PUT OUT, IT'S
DEFINITELY NOT ALIGNED WITH OUR,
YOU KNOW, WHY WE'RE HERE? THE
REASON I WAKE UP EVERY DAY IN
THE MORNING WANTING TO COME TO
WORK HERE IN THIS AMAZING
INSTITUTION IS, FOR THAT REASON,
TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR MOST
VULNERABLE ARE PROTECTED, AND
SERVED AND TAKEN CARE OF, THIS
BUDGET DOES NOT REFLECT THAT. I
WANTED TO, AND I ALSO REMIND
MYSELF, JUST BEFORE I ASK THE
QUESTIONS WHILE WE ARE AS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, CARRILLO
MENTIONED IN TOUGH TIMES, WHEN
WE JUST CAME OUT OF A BUDGET
WHERE WE HAD MORE MONEY THAN WE
KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH, THEY WERE
NOT PRIORITIZED FOR THE
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES, AND
WE'RE STILL THE FIFTH LARGEST
ECONOMY IN THE WORLD. SO CLEARLY
SOME FOLKS ARE BEING PRIORITIZED
, PRIORITIZED OVER OTHERS. WITH
THAT SAID, I WANTED TO FOCUS MY
QUESTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF
THE IHS BENEFIT PROGRAM BASED ON
IMMIGRATION STATUS. YES, YOU
HAVE, YOUR PROPOSING A $94.7
MILLION IN SAVINGS BY
ELIMINATING THAT, THAT PROGRAM.
AND I WANTED TO ASK IF YOU'VE
ACCOUNTED FOR THE EXPENSES THAT
HAVE WILL OCCUR ONCE THAT
PROGRAM IS ELIMINATED AND THE
CLIENTS WHO ARE BEING TAKEN CARE
OF HOME END UP IN OUR EMERGENCY
ROOMS AND PUBLIC HOSPITALS. QUÊ
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. SO, THIS
IS THIS COULD BE A POSSIBILITY.
AT THIS TIME. WE DON'T HAVE ANY
ESTIMATES, BUT WE WILL WORK TO
MAKE SURE WE PUT FORTH A
BALANCED BUDGET TO THE
LEGISLATURE. AND SUBSEQUENT
YEARS AS. SO YOU DON'T YOU DO
NOT KNOW IF THIS WILL ACTUALLY
SAVE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN. JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY. YOU DON'T
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU'RE WITH
THIS CUT. YOU ARE CLAIMING A
SAVINGS OF $94.7 MILLION TO KEEP
PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES. BUT IF
THAT PROGRAM IS ELIMINATED AND
THEY END UP IN THE EMERGENCY
ROOM OR PUBLIC HOSPITALS, YOU
DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN ACTUAL
SAVINGS BECAUSE THE COST WILL BE
THERE. JUST IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
CORRECT I THINK IT'S I THINK
LIKE THOSE ARE SECONDARY AND
TERTIARY IMPACTS AND IT'S
DIFFICULT. IT'S DIFFICULT FOR,
TO KIND OF WITH CERTAINTY,
ESTIMATE WHAT THOSE COSTS MIGHT
BE. BUT TO THE EXTENT, LIKE I
SAID, THAT THAT IS A
POSSIBILITY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY
ESTIMATES AT THIS TIME, BUT WE
WILL WORK, IN FUTURE YEARS TO
PUT FORTH A BALANCED BUDGET, IN
SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS.
WHAT ABOUT NURSING HOMES? WILL
THE COST OF NURSING HOME CARE GO
UP? I THINK SIMILAR TO THE
EMERGENCY CARE, IT COULD BE A
POSSIBILITY, I BELIEVE LAO AND I
BELIEVE WE ALSO ARE WAITING FOR
SOME NUMBERS ON THAT. CAN YOU
SAY SAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT,
PLEASE, FOR THE MEMBER XUAN
TROTTER, LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE. SO YES, WE RECEIVED A
REQUEST TO LOOK INTO THAT ISSUE
AND WE ARE CONTINUING TO LOOK
INTO THAT ISSUE AT THE MOMENT,
AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET BACK TO
YOU IN THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE
ON THAT IN THE, COMING DAYS.
OKAY, MOVING ON TO A DIFFERENT
QUESTION. IF THE THROUGH THE
CHAIR, IF THAT'S OKAY, ON THE
ISSUE OF THE CAL WORKS CUTS, YOU
INCLUDE MAJOR ONE TIME AND
ONGOING THING, CUTS TO THE
PUBLIC SECTOR WORKFORCE. HOW
MANY JOBS WILL BE LOST AS A
RESULT OF THESE CUTS? AND
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. SO CAN I
ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION OF WHICH
CUT YOU ARE REFERRING TO? I'M
NOT SURE. IT'S JUST IT'S, I HAVE
IT ON HERE AS CAL WORKS CUTS.
RIGHT, SO I GUESS ALLOCATION.
RIGHT. SO, IN GENERAL, I THINK,
THE MAY REVISION IS, IS JUST THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL TO
BRIDGE THE SHORTFALL THAT WE'RE
FACING, AND PRESENT A BALANCED
AND RESPONSIBLE BUDGET. BUT LIKE
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, THE MAY
REVISION IS JUST A PROPOSAL. AND
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE
LEGISLATURE MAY HAVE
ALTERNATIVES, AND WE'RE OPEN TO
WORKING AND HAVING DISCUSSIONS
WITH YOU TO DISCUSS THOSE AND
COME TO A FINAL BUDGET
AGREEMENT. MISKOWSKI CAN YOU
COME UP OR YOU HAVE ANY,
REFLECTIONS IN TERMS OF SINGLE
ALLOCATION? WHAT POSSIBLE
RAMIFICATIONS THAT CAN HAVE ON
OUR COUNTIES? I THINK WE SIT
HERE TOO MUCH. I THINK WITH THE
COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS
ASSOCIATION, THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION IS POISED TO TAKE A
CUT OF ABOUT $355 MILLION.
THAT'S OVER A 21% REDUCTION TO
THE FUNDING FOR THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION. WE'VE ESTIMATED THE
IMPACTS. IF WE WERE TO TAKE ALL
OF THAT JUST ALONE IN STAFFING
TO BE OVER 1700 EMPLOYEES
STATEWIDE, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE
EITHER, LAID OFF OR POSITIONS
HELD VACANT AND SO FORTH. THESE
ARE INDIVIDUALS THAT PROVIDE
CASE MANAGEMENT. THEY PROVIDE
ACCESS TO THESE BENEFITS. THEY
PROVIDE OTHER SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES AND ACCESS TO THOSE
SERVICES. SO THESE ARE DIRECT
CUTS TO THE CORE PROGRAM ITSELF,
THANK YOU, AND I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. I'M
JUST THINKING ABOUT HOW THESE
CUTS ARE GOING TO THE, THE
PEOPLE PROVIDING THE SERVICES
WHO WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS WILL
NOW END UP NEEDING THESE
SERVICES THEMSELVES, THAT IS MY
QUESTION. HOW IS THAT GOING TO
HELP OUR BUDGET? THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, NOW WE HAVE, MISS BONTA
AND MISS REYES. THANK YOU,
CHAIR, FOR ALLOWING US ALL TO BE
HERE. AND I JUST WANT TO, SHARE
A BIT OF EMPATHY WITH THE FOLKS
WHO ARE HERE. I KNOW THAT THESE
ARE HARD CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU
HAVE BEEN HAVING. AND I JUST
WANT TO HIT ON THE COMMENT THAT
I'VE HEARD IN SETTING A LOT OF
BUDGET HEARINGS. SO THE PUBLIC
SAFETY HEARINGS, HEALTH HEARINGS
AND NOW HUMAN SERVICES, THIS
IDEA OF NEEDING TO BE ABLE TO
BALANCE THE BUDGET, WE'RE GOING
TO BE BALANCING THE BUDGET BASED
ON THESE PROPOSALS ON THE BACKS
OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND OUR
MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES AND
I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE
ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO DO. THIS
GOVERNOR WANTS TO DO. BUT
NEVERTHELESS, THE PROPOSALS THAT
HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD
ESSENTIALLY DO THAT. AND I THINK
WE HAVE TO OAN THAT AND DO WHAT
WE CAN AS A LEGISLATURE TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
I'LL START WHERE MY COLLEAGUE
FROM SAN LEANDRO, ENDED HER
COMMENTS AROUND THE SINGLE
ALLOCATION FOR CALWORKS. I
BELIEVE THAT THE ESTIMATED
NUMBER OF WORKERS WHO ARE GOING
TO ESSENTIALLY, LOSE THEIR STATE
WIDE POSITIONS OR BE COMPLETELY
ELIMINATED IS ABOUT 1700
CALWORKS POSITIONS. SO JUST
THINK ABOUT WHO THOSE PEOPLE
ARE. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE LARGELY PEOPLE WHO ENTERED
INTO THE WORKFORCE TO BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT PEOPLE WHO ARE FROM
THEIR COMMUNITIES, WHO ARE LIKE
US AND WHO ARE TRYING TO MAKE A
DIFFERENCE FOR THEIR
COMMUNITIES. THERE ARE PEOPLE
WHO ARE BARELY MAKING A LIVING
WAGE, WHO PROBABLY FACE 40 TO
50% RENT BURDEN, TO BE ABLE TO
AFFORD TO HAVE THE HONOR OF
SERVICE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND THERE ARE PEOPLE
WHO DEAL WITH THE MOST DIRE
CIRCUMSTANCES. PEOPLE WAKE UP IN
THE MORNING AND TALK TO PEOPLE
WHO ARE ON THEIR VERY LAST
BREATH OF HOPE. THAT'S THE 1700
POSITIONS THAT WE'RE SEEKING TO
CUT. AND IT'S TRUE THAT WHEN WE
CUT THOSE POSITIONS, WHAT WILL
HAPPEN IS THAT THEY WILL THEN
BECOME POTENTIAL RECIPIENTS FOR
CALWORKS. NOW, WHAT WILL HAPPEN
TO CALWORKS AND THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE ON EXISTING CALWORKS? WHEN
WE CUT THOSE 1700 POSITIONS AT
THE COUNTY LEVEL, WE KNOW THAT
THOSE WORKERS ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE
FRONT LINE WORKERS, MAKING SURE
THAT PEOPLE GET CONNECTED TO
THEIR SERVICES. REYES. SO WHILE
ON PAPER WE WILL HAVE SOME
MODICUM OF RESOURCES AVAILABLE
FOR, CALWORKS SUPPORT, WE WILL
NOT HAVE THE INDIVIDUALS
AVAILABLE TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT
PEOPLE TO CALWORKS IN A
MEANINGFUL WAY, TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY'RE RECEIVING THE
SUPPORTS AND SERVICES THAT THIS
STATE ON PAPER, ON OUR BUDGET
HAS ALLOCATED FOR. SO IF AT SOME
POINT, I THINK IT'S JUST
INCREDIBLY SPECIOUS FOR US TO
SAY THAT WE ARE BALANCING THE
BUDGET BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE DOING
IS DECREASING POTENTIAL
UTILIZATION FOR CALWORKS BY
ELIMINATING THOSE POSITIONS AND
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
WHO NEED TO BE ON CALWORKS BY
ELIMINATING THOSE POSITIONS. SO
AT SOME POINT, WE JUST HAVE TO
STOP, LIKE, WE JUST WE CAN'T DO
IT, AND, AND SPECIFICALLY, I
GUESS THE QUESTION FOR YOU ALL
IS, IS THERE ANY KIND OF
PROJECTION ON THE PERHAPS THE
SECONDARY TERTIARY IMPACTS, THE
NEGATIVE IMPACTS, THE
OPPORTUNITY COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH MAKING, A CUT AROUND EVEN
THE SINGLE ALLOCATION, BECAUSE
IT'S FINE TO SAY THAT AT THE END
OF THE DAY, ALL THE NUMBERS ADD
UP AND WE'RE IN THE BLACK. BUT
IF WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY BEING
THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE IMPACT OF
THE CUTS THAT WE'RE MAKING IN
TERMS OF INCREASING COSTS AND
OTHER PLACES, THEN WE'RE NOT
ACTUALLY PRESENTING A BALANCED
FROM A VALUES PERSPECTIVE
BUDGET. LOURDES MORALES WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. YOU NEED
TO PUT THAT CLOSER. LOURDES
MORALES WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. THE MAY REVISION
PROPOSES AN APPROACH TO ADDRESS
THE BUDGET DEFICIT WHERE WE
UNDERSTAND WE'RE MAKING REALLY
DIFFICULT CHOICES IN THE
LEGISLATURE, MAY NOT AGREE WITH
ALL OF THOSE DECISIONS. WE
APPRECIATE THIS CONVERSATION AS
WE SORT OF THINK THROUGH HOW TO
CONTINUE TO ADDRESS THE CORE
BENEFITS PROVIDED ACROSS THESE
PROGRAMS. THE MAY REVISION
MAINTAINS CORE GRANTS FOR
CALWORKS FOR CISP ÁP, FOOD
BENEFITS AS SORT OF A NUMBER OF
OTHER CORE ACTIVITIES THAT WE
INTENDED TO SORT OF PROTECT AS
WE SORT OF MADE ADDITIONAL HARD
CHOICES. OUR APPROACH WAS
GENERALLY TO TRY TO ADDRESS SORT
OF ONE TIME DOLLARS THAT COULD
BE PULLED BACK AS WELL AS
THINKING ABOUT THINGS THAT WERE
NEWLY IMPLEMENTED OR MAYBE WERE
JUST ABOUT TO BE IMPLEMENTED.
AND SO WE SORT OF TOOK THAT
GENERAL APPROACH TO TRY TO
BALANCE THE BUDGET, BUT SORT OF
UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN CONTINUE
TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AS WE
REACH TOWARDS A COMPROMISE
BUDGET THAT WILL BE ADOPTED. I
APPRECIATE THAT RESPONSE. IT WAS
NON-RESPONSIVE TO MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION WAS, HAS THERE BEEN
ANY, ANALYSIS DONE TO UNDERSTAND
TRULY THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS AND
THE LOSS OF, OF WELL, THE
INCREASED RISK WE'RE PUTTING
PEOPLE AT WHEN WE DO THINGS LIKE
CUT 1700 FRONTLINE WORKERS
AROUND ABILITY TO NAVIGATE
TOWARDS CALWORKS SUPPORTS AND
SERVICES. HAS THAT ANALYSIS BEEN
DONE AND IS IT ABLE AND ARE WE
ABLE TO SEE THAT ANALYSIS IN
ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A
DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW US TO
BE ABLE TO, AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
SANTIAGO SAID, SLEEP AT NIGHT.
WE DON'T HAVE FIGURES TO SHARE
ON THAT QUESTION, AND THAT IS A
CONTINUED THEME IN EVERY SINGLE
HEARING I'VE BEEN IN THAT IS
INCREDIBLY PROBLEMATIC, AND ONE
THAT I HOPE THE ADMINISTRATION,
WORKS ON BECAUSE WE CAN'T
CONTINUE TO NOT HAVE ANY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPACTS OF
THE DECISIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING
IN TERMS OF THE INCREASED COST
OF CARE FOR INDIVIDUALS OR THE
IMPACTS OF THOSE COSTS. WE SIT
HERE AS LEGISLATORS AND DO THAT.
I'M GOING TO MOVE ON NOW TO SOME
ISSUES AROUND, CHILD CARE AND
SOME OF THE PROPOSED CUTS. THERE
AND I REALLY HOPE I DON'T GET A
RESPONSE THAT I'VE BEEN GETTING
AT EVERY SINGLE HEARING, SO THE
PROPOSAL IS TO CUT 200,000
SPACES THAT WERE PROMISED IN THE
2122 BUDGET. IN ADDITION, THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ADOPTED TRAILER
BILL LANGUAGE, WITH A TIMELINE
FOR THE PLANNED RELEASE OF THE
REMAINING 81,000 SPACES BY MY
ESTIMATES RIGHT NOW, THE
GOVERNOR IN HIS MOTHER'S DAY
PROMISE OF 2021 AND THE
ADMINISTRATION IS ONLY MEETING
59% OF THE PROMISE THAT WE MADE
TO ACTUALLY ENSURE THAT WE HAD,
SPACES AVAILABLE FOR, YOU'VE
ALREADY ADDRESSED THE KIND OF
THE SUPPOSED BACKFILLING THAT WE
WILL BE ABLE TO DO FOR SOME OF
THAT. I WANT TO MOVE ON TO
HAVING A GREATER UNDERSTANDING
AROUND THE ADOPTION OF A
TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
ALTERNATIVE RATE METHODOLOGY. WE
CONTINUE AS A LEGISLATURE TO BE
OPERATING COMPLETELY IN THE DARK
ABOUT THAT RATE METHODOLOGY OR
RATE METHODOLOGY THAT OUR,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, GÓMEZ REYES,
FOUGHT VERY HARD FOR US TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE, ALONG WITH,
SENATOR LIMÓN, WE NEED TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE CERTAINTY AROUND
THAT RATE METHODOLOGY. CAN YOU
PROVIDE A TIMELINE AROUND WHEN
WE WILL HAVE THAT AVAILABLE TO
US, KIM JOHNSON, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
WE Tð AND WITH THE CHAPTER
LEGISLATION OF LAST YEAR ARE
COMMITTED TO UTILIZING THE
ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY IN HOW
WE SET RATES FOR CHILD CARE
REIMBURSEMENT. SO WHERE WE ARE
IN THE PROCESS IS THAT WE'LL BE
SUBMITTING A STATE PLAN TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY JULY 1ST
THIS SUMMER, THAT PLAN WILL THEN
BE, HOPEFULLY VERY QUICKLY
APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, POST THE PLAN,
APPROVAL WILL BE WORKING AND
REENGAGING WITH THE CHILD CARE
PROVIDERS UNITED TO RENEGOTIATE
THE ACTUAL RATE STRUCTURE. BUT
ALL OF THE WORK TO GET US TO
THAT POINT HAS BEEN DONE. WE
HAVE SURVEYED THE WORKFORCE, THE
PROGRAMS WE HAVE UTILIZED THAT
DATA TO THEN PUT INTO A WHOLE
FRAMEWORK IN TERMS OF WHAT WILL
EACH OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE
ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY LOOK
LIKE? THINGS LIKE SALARIES AND
WAGES, HEALTH BENEFITS, THOSE
THOSE KINDS OF COMPONENTS, THOSE
DIFFERENT COMPONENTS FOR THE
CHILDREN AND CARE. SO THAT HAS
BEEN AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE
ADMINISTRATION AND CHILD CARE
PROVIDERS. UNITED THAT
FRAMEWORK. WE ARE NOW HAVING
THAT SAME CONVERSATION WITH THE
CENTER BASED PROVIDERS. THE
NON-REPRESENTED, PARTS OF THE
WORKFORCE. AND THEN AGAIN, THE
PLAN, WILL HAVE THE REOPENING
WITH CPU AND ENGAGE WITH THE
REMAINING NON-REPRESENTED
PORTIONS OF THE PROGRAM LATER
THIS YEAR TO GET TO A GET TO A
OPERATIONAL TIME PERIOD BY WHICH
WE'LL THEN IMPLEMENT. SO AT THE
EARLIEST THAT WOULD BE JULY 1ST
OF 2025. IT'S GOING TO DEPEND
UPON THE ALL OF THE OPERATIONAL
CONSIDERATIONS TO UTILIZE THAT
METHODOLOGY. SO FOR EXAMPLE,
WILL THE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS
NEED TO CHANGE THEIR AUTOMATED
SYSTEMS, THOSE KINDS OF
COMPONENTS. AND WE'RE IN THAT
ANALYSIS RIGHT NOW. AND THAT'S
ALSO ONE OF THE DELIVERABLES WE
HAVE TO THE CHILD CARE PROVIDERS
UNITED. WHEN OUR PLAN IS
APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. AND FOR THE CHAIR AS
A POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION, IT
MIGHT BE HELPFUL IN TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE TO ARTICULATE THE
ANTICIPATED GUIDANCE AND
DIRECTIVE AROUND THE TIMELINE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE, ALTERNATIVE
RATE METHODOLOGY THAT WAS JUST
LAID OUT SO THAT WE AT LEAST
HAVE SOMETHING DOCUMENTED TO
MAKE US ALL BE MORE IN SYNC THAN
I THINK WE HAVE BEEN, JUST AS AS
A THOUGHT I WANTED TO MOVE NOW
TO THE REVERSION ACCOUNT. SO
THIS ACCOUNT WOULD ENSURE THAT
THE LEGISLATURE ACTUALLY
ALLOCATES DOLLARS FOR SPACES.
THE MONEY STAYS WITHIN THE
SYSTEM, EVEN IF THE
ADMINISTRATION FACES DELAYS
GETTING THE DOLLARS OUT THE
DOOR. IS THERE ANY INFORMATION
THAT YOU ALL CAN PROVIDE
REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF THE
REVERSION ACCOUNT? YEAH, CLOSER
TO THE LIKES. SHOULD WE ALL,
GABBY SANTORO, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE WE DON'T HAVE ANY
INFORMATION ON THIS TIME ABOUT
THIS CONCEPT, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO
ENGAGE WITH THE LEGISLATURE TO
CONSIDER, THIS CONCEPT, IF I
MAY, ALSO, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR
PRIOR COMMENT. SB TO PULL YOUR
MIC CLOSER, PLEASE. YES SB 140
LAST YEAR WAS A BUDGET TRAILER
BILL ON CHILD CARE, WHICH DID
ACTUALLY OUTLINE MANY OF THE
MILESTONES THAT THE DIRECTOR
REFERENCED WITH RESPECT TO THE
ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY. SO MANY
OF THEM ARE IN STATUTE, AND WE
ALSO HAVE REQUIRED TIMELINES FOR
REPORTS TO THE LEGISLATURE.
HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT ANY
ADDITIONS THAT YOU MIGHT BE
INTERESTED IN, BUT WANTED TO
MAKE SURE YOU WERE AWARE THAT
THEY DO EXIST IN SOME FORM
ALREADY. GREAT. THANK YOU. AND
JUST BEFORE LÀ, DID YOU NOT HAVE
SOME RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN IT
CAME TO THE METHODOLOGY IN TERMS
OF ENSURING THE LEGISLATURE HAS
A MAKING SURE WE HAVE A PROPER
ROLE, AS THEY SUBMIT THEIR PLAN
TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, CAN
YOU TOUCH ON THAT A LITTLE BIT?
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE YOUR
REMARKS ABOUT THAT, HAPPY TO
PROVIDE AN OVERALL, COMMENTS.
BUT THIS HAS COME UP IN MANY
HEARINGS, AND WE'VE BEEN IN MANY
CONVERSATIONS WITH BUDGET STAFF,
AND WE CONTINUE TO BE IN THOSE
CONVERSATIONS WITH BUDGET STAFF,
BUT THEN ALSO STAKEHOLDERS. I
THINK WHAT WE'VE HEARD IS THAT
SOME OF THE CONCERNS WITH THE
EXISTING LANGUAGE IS THAT, A LOT
OF THOSE MILESTONES AND REPORT
BACKS MAY END AT THE END OF THIS
FISCAL YEAR, BUT THERE MAY BE
LACK IN DETAIL AROUND GETTING A
BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF
OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, SUCH
AS IT SYSTEMS. BY WHEN WOULD WE
KNOW WHAT IT SYSTEM CHANGES
WOULD NEED TO BE IMPLEMENTED,
AND HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE FOR
THOSE CHANGES TO BE MADE? SO
THEN WE HAVE A BETTER SENSE OF
THEN WHAT IS THAT EARLIEST
IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINE? I WILL
FLAG THAT THE JULY 1ST, 2025
DATE, WHILE IT IS THE DATE IN
WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ANTICIPATES THE RATE STRUCTURE
TO BE IN PLACE, THERE'S STILL A
UNCERTAINTY ON WHAT THAT
ACTUALLY MEANS. DOES IT MEAN WE
JUST HAVE TO HAVE THE, SURVEY
SYSTEM IN PLACE? DO RATES NEED
TO BE BASED OFF OF THE NEW RATES
? DO THEY NEED TO BE BASED OFF
OF 100% OF THE NEW RATES? OR
COULD WE TAKE IN A PHASED IN
APPROACH? HOW WOULD THAT PHASED
IN APPROACH BE DETERMINED? AND,
OVER WHAT TIME PERIOD, SO AGAIN,
WE'RE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AND LEAGUE STAFF TO
TRY TO IDENTIFY WHAT ARE THOSE
MISSING PIECES WITHIN THE
EXISTING TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE.
AS THE DEPARTMENT NOTED AND
REPORTING BACK TO THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUGGESTED
LANGUAGE. THAT AND I KNOW THAT
THIS IS ALL MOVING VERY SWIFTLY.
SO I'M SURE THE CHAIR IS ON TOP
OF ALL OF THIS. AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP FOR
SO LONG ON THIS. I WILL END MY
COMMENTS, THERE ARE OTHERS THAT
I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO JUST AROUND
THE, CALWORKS THE CUTS RELATED
TO FOSTER CHILDREN IN THE
EMERGENCY CHILD CARE BRIDGE
PROGRAM THAT I THINK IS JUST
THAT IS THAT IS MONEY THAT WE
CAN'T AFFORD TO IT'S PRICELESS
WORK AND, WE CANNOT BUILD A
BUDGET ON OUR MOST DIRE,
CRITICALLY NEEDED SUPPORTS AND
SERVICES FOR CHILDREN WHO ARE IN
FOSTER CARE. SO I WOULD URGE THE
ADMINISTRATION AND THIS
LEGISLATURE TO CONSIDER NOT
MAKING THAT PARTICULAR CUT, I'LL
DEFER MY TIME. WE COULD GO ON
AND ON. BUT MISS REYES. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I TOO, WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP. THIS IS. EVERY
COMMITTEE IS IMPORTANT, AND
WE'RE REVIEWING THINGS IN THE
BUDGET THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT.
BUT I THINK THIS COMMITTEE AND
ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT FALL
UNDER THIS COMMITTEE ARE THE
ONES THAT AFFECT OUR MOST
VULNERABLE. THIS HAS BEEN SHARED
BY EVERYBODY, AND I AGREE,
DOCTOR ARAMBULA, WE'RE DOING THE
PEOPLE'S WORK AND THEY EXPECT US
TO DO THE PEOPLE'S WORK, THERE'S
NO QUESTION THAT THERE ARE VERY
DIFFICULT DECISIONS THAT NEED TO
BE MADE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS
OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WE HAVE TO
DEAL WITH THE BUDGET DEFICIT. IT
IS IT ISN'T A SMALL DEFICIT.
IT'S A BIG DEFICIT. THERE'S NO
QUESTION ABOUT THAT. BUT I THINK
THAT TO SOME EXTENT, WE MAY FEEL
A LITTLE POWERLESS, BUT I CAN
ONLY IMAGINE WHAT OUR
CONSTITUENTS FEEL IF WE ARE
FEELING A BIT POWERLESS IN OUR
DISCUSSIONS, ON THIS ISSUE,
BECAUSE WE FEEL PASSIONATELY
ABOUT WHO IT IS WE REPRESENT,
WHO IT IS WE'RE TRYING TO
PROTECT, WHAT BENEFITS WE'RE
TRYING TO PROTECT. AND IF WE'RE
FEELING THIS, THE, THE FEELING
OF THOSE PROVIDERS WHO ARE
WONDERING WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO
DO ONCE THESE CUTS ARE PUT INTO
PLACE, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO
PROTECT THOSE JOBS? HOW ARE THEY
GOING TO WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO
DO TO HELP THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE
GOING TO BE LOSING THEIR JOBS? I
I DO HOPE THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION WILL CONTINUE TO
EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO
PRESERVE THE FUNDING FOR SOME OF
OUR KEY SAFETY NET PROGRAMS.
THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT,
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. AND CLEARLY
THROUGH OUR CHAIR, WHO IS
HEARING US AND WHO HAS INVITED
US AND HAS HAS AGREED TO ALLOW
MANY OF US WHO DON'T SIT ON THIS
COMMITTEE TO BE PART OF THIS AND
TO BE PART OF THIS DISCUSSION, I
WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE FOR
TALKING ABOUT THIS ALTERNATIVE
METHODOLOGY. IT'S SO IMPORTANT
BECAUSE I AM ABSOLUTELY
CONCERNED THAT IF BY JULY 1ST OF
25, WE DON'T TAKE ACTION. I
MEAN, I HEARD YOUR RESPONSE, BUT
I'M CONCERNED THAT IF WE DON'T
TAKE ACTION, WE'RE GOING TO
RETURN TO THE 2018 LEVELS. WE
CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE THAT
HAPPEN. AND WHEN YOU TALKED
ABOUT UNCERTAINTY, IF YOU HAVE
UNCERTAINTY, TELL US WHAT WE
NEED TO DO. TELL US HOW WE CAN
HELP, BECAUSE WE CANNOT HAVE
THIS UNCERTAINTY CONTINUE ON
THIS ISSUE IN PARTICULAR, WE
WORKED REALLY HARD AND LAST YEAR
WE PROVIDED TEMPORARY RATE
INCREASES FOR OUR CHILD CARE
PROVIDERS. BUT IF WE DON'T TAKE
CARE OF THE REPORTING AND
EVERYTHING ELSE AND WHAT WHAT
THE FEDS NEED BY BY JULY 1ST,
2025, IF WE DON'T TAKE CARE OF
THAT, WE COULD REVERT BACK TO
THE 2018 LEVELS. I DON'T WANT US
TO DO THAT. THAT REPORT HAS TO
BE IN THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED
OUR REPORT. IT'S NOT DUE JUST
YET, BUT I WOULD LIKE SOME
QUESTIONS ON THIS. WHEN WILL WE
HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ON THE ELEMENTS THAT THE STATE
WILL USE TO CALCULATE THE COST
OF CARE AS PART OF THE
ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY THAT IT
SUBMITS TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT? IT'S MY FIRST
QUESTION. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. WE HAVE SUBMITTED A
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE. WE'RE
GLAD TO FOLLOW UP AND MAKE SURE
THAT'S IN THE HANDS OF EVERYONE
WE'VE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED TWO.
ONE, THAT WAS A REPORT THAT
OUTLINED ALL EFFORTS TO DATE ON
THE ALTERNATIVE RATE METHODOLOGY
WORK, AND AGAIN IDENTIFIED THE
TIMELINE OF OUR NEXT STEPS. THE
SECOND WAS ONE WAS AN UPDATE. SO
WITHIN THAT REPORT AND IS
ACTUALLY POSTED ONLINE ON OUR
WEBSITE, ARE EXACTLY THAT. THE
ELEMENTS THAT WILL BE INCLUDED
THAT HAVE BEEN AGREED UPON
BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND
CHILD CARE PROVIDERS UNITED TO
BE INCLUDED IN THAT ALTERNATIVE
METHODOLOGY THAT'S POSTED NOW
AND HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE
LEGISLATURE. WE ARE WORKING
RIGHT NOW WITH THE
NON-REPRESENTED MEMBERS OF THE
WORKFORCE, TO ALSO LAND THAT
SAME STRUCTURE. AND THAT WILL
AGAIN, WE'RE AIMING FOR THE SAME
JULY THIS YEAR, SUBMISSION TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AND THEN
JACKIE BARRASSO, LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST OFFICE, IN TERMS OF YOUR
SPECIFIC QUESTION OF WHEN WILL
WE HAVE LANDED ON THE ELEMENTS
THAT WILL MAKE UP THE NEW RATES?
I WILL FLAG THAT, ONCE THE AS AS
OUTLINED IN STATUTE, ONCE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT APPROVES THE
STATE PLAN, IT'S OUR
UNDERSTANDING, THEN, THAT THE
DEPARTMENT WILL OPEN
NEGOTIATIONS AGAIN WITH THE,
CHILD CARE PROVIDERS UNION.
HOWEVER I WILL ALSO FLAG THAT
NOT ALL CHILD CARE PROVIDERS ARE
REPRESENTED BY THE UNION. SO
THERE WOULD ALSO NEED TO BE A
CONCURRENT PROCESS FOR THOSE
NON-REPRESENTED PROVIDERS
THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET
PROCESS, BASED OFF OF THE
TIMELINE LAID OUT IN STATUTE
WOULD BE NEXT YEAR. HOWEVER,
GIVEN THE UNCERTAINTY OF HOW
THOSE, NEGOTIATIONS MAY GO WITH
THE UNION, THAT'S WHAT KIND OF
MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO GIVE A
CERTAIN DATE AROUND. WHEN WILL
THE ELEMENTS BE FINALIZED, AND
WHEN DO WE EXPECT TO ADOPT THEM
AND IMPLEMENT THEM? EXACTLY AND
TO WHAT EXTENT WILL THE SYSTEM
INFRASTRUCTURE BE IN PLACE TO
ADOPT THOSE FINAL DECISIONS? I
THINK, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
HAS FLAGGED ANOTHER HEARINGS AS
WELL, SINCE THESE RATES WOULD
ALSO APPLY TO PRESCHOOL, THEY'VE
ALREADY NOTED TO THE EXTENT THAT
THE RATES DO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
DATA ELEMENTS TO BE COLLECTED,
IT WOULD REQUIRE SYSTEM UPDATES
POTENTIALLY REDOING THEIR THEIR
SYSTEM COMPLETELY. AND AGAIN,
THAT MAY TAKE MORE TIME. THAT
GOES BEYOND JULY 1ST, 2025. SO
WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PLAN TO AVOID A GAP BETWEEN THE
END OF THE CURRENT CCP QUÊ
CONTRACT IN JUNE OF 2025 AND THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW
ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY THAT
TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE TRUE COST
OF CARE. GABBY STEINORTH,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, WE, AS,
DIRECTOR JOHNSON AND MY
COLLEAGUE, MISS BAROCIO HAD
NOTED, WE HAVE ALREADY
COLLECTIVELY DONE A LOT OF WORK
TO MOVE THIS PROCESS ALONG, AND
WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WHAT IS IMPLEMENTED IS
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT ONE, WE
AGREE WITH, FOR CCP REPRESENTED
PROVIDERS AND WHAT WE DO AS
PARITY FOR THE NON-REPRESENTED
SECTOR, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
WE HAVE DONE WITH THE AS AS PART
OF 2021, WITH THE INAUGURAL CCP
AGREEMENT AND THE SUCCESSOR
AGREEMENT THAT HAPPENED IN 2023,
THAT ADMINISTRATION IS WORKING
HARD TO PREPARE AS MUCH AS WE
CAN BECAUSE WE CANNOT ANTICIPATE
WHAT YOU KNOW, WE ARE ONE, ONE
PARTY TO A TWO PARTY AGREEMENT
THAT THAT SHOULD BE STARTED TO
BE NEGOTIATED. VERY POWERFUL
PARTY, CERTAINLY, WE, SO ALL IN
ALL, TRYING TO PREPARE WHAT WE
CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE
IMPLEMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH
WHAT AGREEMENT WE REACHED WITH
BOTH KPU AND THE LEGISLATURE FOR
THE ENTIRETY OF THE OF THE
FIELD. PLEASE KNOW THAT WE'RE
AVAILABLE BECAUSE THIS IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. WE DO NOT
WANT THESE ARE NOT GOTCHA
MOMENTS. THEY CAN'T BE BECAUSE
IT'S PEOPLE'S LIVES THAT ARE
THAT ARE BEING AFFECTED BY ALL
OF THIS. WE JUST HAVE TO FIGURE
OUT WHAT OUR PLAN IS. WE DO HAVE
TO HAVE A BACKUP PLAN IF WE
DON'T TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS IN
TIME AND WE FALL BACK TO THE
2018, WHAT IS OUR PLAN? AND I
THINK THAT IT'S A FAIR QUESTION.
AND WE NEED TO KNOW. WE NEED TO
KNOW THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT
THAT AND THAT WE ARE WE ARE
LOOKING AT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO
DO IF THINGS DON'T WORK OUT. I
DO WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR. I
WHAT IN IN YOUR ANALYSIS. I MEAN
THE WORDS THAT YOU USED
ELIMINATE DECIMATE CUT OFF,
DESTABILIZE. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW
WE'RE ALL FEELING ABOUT THIS.
AND I. I WANT TO GO TO THE CHILD
CARE SLOTS. I KNOW THERE HAVE
BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS
REGARDING THAT, BUT I AND YOU
ALREADY KNOW THIS. MORE THAN TWO
THIRDS OF CHILDREN UNDER AGE
FIVE AND UNDER NEED CHILD CARE
BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS ARE IN THE
WORKFORCE. 2.1 MILLION CHILDREN
ARE ELIGIBLE FOR SUBSIDIZED
CHILD CARE SERVICES, BUT ONLY
11% ARE ACTUALLY ENROLLED. WE
HAVE THIS WAIT LIST THAT IS
FOREVER, AND THAT'S WHY THIS WAS
SO IMPORTANT TO FINALLY PROVIDE
THE SLOTS. AND AS MY COLLEAGUE
SAID, WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE THESE
ARE DIFFICULT TIMES. WE GET IT.
WE ABSOLUTELY GET IT. BUT I HOPE
THAT YOU ARE HEARING HOW
IMPORTANT IT IS FOR US THAT AS
WE'RE BALANCING THIS BUDGET,
THAT WE NOT TRY TO BALANCE IT
USED THING THE USING FUNDING
THAT CAN HELP THE MOST
VULNERABLE PEOPLE. WE DO REALLY
DO HAVE TO COME UP WITH A PLAN
TO ROLL OUT THE REMAINING SLOTS.
SLOTS THAT REMAINING SLOTS TO
REACH OUR GOAL JUST ON THAT, THE
ANOTHER, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR,
THE CAL WORKS MENTAL HEALTH AND
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS SERVICES
, WE HAVE 100 OVER 126 MILLION
BEING ELIMINATED. FROM FROM THIS
THIS PROGRAM, FAMILIES THAT
RECEIVE THESE SERVICES, THE
COUNTIES THAT USE THEIR MENTAL
HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE
ALLOCATIONS TO DEVELOP AND
EXPAND THEIR PROGRAMS FOR
CALWORKS RECIPIENTS WHO NEED
THESE SERVICES IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN OR MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT,
OR TO PARTICIPATE IN OTHER
WELFARE TO WORK ACTIVITIES ARE
GOING TO BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED.
SO THESE PROPOSED CUTS ARE VERY
CONCERNING, WE KNOW THAT
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER TREATMENT
IS CRITICAL, ESPECIALLY FOR OUR
FAMILIES AT RISK OF ENTERING
INTO THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM,
ANOTHER AND I DON'T KNOW IF MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT,
IS THE CAL WORKS HOME VISITING
PROGRAM, IT'S A VOLUNTARY
PROGRAM THAT PAIRS NEW PARENTS
WITH PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES TO
MAKE REGULAR VISITS TO CLIENTS
HOMES. SUCH AN IMPORTANT,
IMPORTANT POINT, PROGRAM. IT'S A
CRITICAL PROGRAM THAT CONNECTS
PARENTS WITH THE NECESSARY
RESOURCES. I'M VERY CONCERNED
THAT THAT IS ANOTHER CUT OUT,
AND, MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY. TWO
OTHER PROGRAMS, THAT I'M VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT IS FOR FOSTER
YOUTH. AND THIS HAS BEEN TALKED
ABOUT BY MY COLLEAGUES. BUT
THESE CUTS ARE GOING TO IMPACT
OUR CHILDREN AND OUR YOUTH IN
THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM. THE
PROGRAM SPECIFICALLY IS A FAMILY
URGENT RESPONSE SYSTEM. AND I'M
GLAD MY COLLEAGUE TALKED ABOUT
THAT. AND THE EMERGENCY CHILD
CARE BRIDGE PROGRAM WITH THESE
CUTS, THEY WOULD HAVE
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON OUR
FOSTER YOUTH. WE MUST DO
EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO
PROTECT THEM. WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING CARE OF
THEIR NEEDS, THIS IS THIS IS A
PROMISE THAT WE MAKE TO THEM. WE
TALK ABOUT VICTIMIZING PEOPLE
OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF OUR
GROUPS THAT WE PROMISE THAT
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF. WE
FIND WAYS TO TAKE CARE OF THEM.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
DON'T VICTIMIZE THEM AGAIN. SO
MY QUESTION IS, HOW WILL THE
PROPOSED CUTS AFFECT OUR FOSTER
YOUTH? AND HAVE WE EVALUATED,
EVALUATED HOW THOSE PARTICULAR
CUTS ARE GOING TO IMPACT
SPECIFIC OUR FOSTER YOUTH? THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER FOR THAT
QUESTION. AND AS IT RELATES
SPECIFICALLY TO THE EMERGENCY
CHILD CARE BRIDGE FOR FOSTER
FAMILIES, ONE OAN PIECE OF
INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE SHARED
WITH THE COMMITTEE PRIOR IS THAT
IT HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY UNDER
UTILIZED AND SO THE PROPOSED
REDUCTION THERE IS ESSENTIALLY,
LOOKING TO FUND IT AT LEVELS OF
ITS UTILIZATION. THE OTHER THING
I WOULD POINT OUT, SPECIFIC TO
THAT, I APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE
BEING WE'RE BEING GOOD STEWARDS
OF THE MONEY, SO I APPRECIATE
THAT. THE OTHER THING I WOULD,
SPECIFICALLY SAY, WHILE I KNOW
IT'S PART OF THIS CONVERSATION
AND ARRAY OF PROPOSALS AS WELL,
IS THAT WE HAVE, IN FACT, OVER
THE LAST FEW YEARS,
SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED THE CHILD
CARE SUBSIDY LANDSCAPE. SO I
COMPLETELY APPRECIATE ALL
COMMENTS MADE TODAY ABOUT THE
PROPOSALS HERE. BUT THE, THE
SIGNIFICANT INCREASES THAT WE
HAVE MADE OF THOSE 118,000
CHILDREN WHO ARE RECEIVING CARE
THAT WEREN'T RECEIVING CARE
BEFORE IS SIGNIFICANT. AND WHEN
THE EMERGENCY CHILD CARE BRIDGE
FOR FOSTER FAMILIES WAS FIRST
INTRODUCED, THAT WAS NOT THE
LANDSCAPE. SO WE ARE ABLE TO, IN
FACT, SERVE MORE FAMILIES THAT
WOULD BE PRIORITIZED FOR CHILD
CARE SUBSIDIES BECAUSE THEY ARE
AT RISK OF INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD
PROTECTIVE SERVICES INTO THE
BROADER CHILD CARE SUBSIDY
ARRAY. SO COLLECTIVELY, WE HAVE
DONE THAT WORK TOGETHER. SO A
LITTLE BIT OF A LANDSCAPE CHANGE
FOR THOSE FAMILIES. BUT ALSO
THIS PROPOSAL IS TO REDUCE AT
THE UTILIZATION LEVELS. ALL
RIGHT, MR. CHAIR, JUST TWO. SO
ON THE CHILD HOLISTIC
IMMIGRATION REPRESENTATION
PROJECT CHIRP IS A PROGRAM
DESIGNED TO ASSIST UNACCOMPANIED
MINORS IN OUR STATE. THIS
PROGRAM IS BEING ELIMINATED
DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS A
PILOT PROPOSED BY THE STATE. MY
QUESTION IS, HAS THE NEED FOR
THIS PROGRAM ALSO GONE AWAY? IS
THERE ANY ALTERNATIVE IN PLACE
TO MEET THE NEEDS THAT STILL
EXIST? THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION, ASSEMBLYMEMBER, AGAIN,
I WILL SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT
YES, WE CERTAINLY STILL DO HAVE
AN UNACCOMPANIED UNDOCUMENTED
MINORS THAT WE ARE SUPPORTING IN
CALIFORNIA AS CALIFORNIA'S
RESIDENTS, WE DO AGAIN, HAVE
ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS HERE THAT
HAVE SOMEWHAT CHANGED THE
LANDSCAPE. SO ONE OF THOSE WOULD
BE OUR CAL NHIÀU, OUR NEW, NEW.
I'M GOING TO FORGET THE ACRONYM
NEWCOMERS PROGRAM, AND THAT'S
SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT
UNACCOMPANIED MINORS IN OUR
SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO ENSURE THAT
THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS NOT ONLY
HAVE CAPACITY TO BETTER SERVE
THIS YOUTH POPULATION THÀNH, BUT
ALSO THEIR FAMILIES, SO THAT IS
A NEW, AGAIN, EXPANDED SERVICE
THAT DIDN'T EXIST PRIOR. THAT
WILL CONTINUE, BUT NOT IN THE
SAME EXACT WAY THAT THE
PARTICULAR PILOT THAT YOU
REFERENCED HAS. OKAY. AND THEN
THE LAST AREA, MR. CHAIR, THE
CAL WORKS CUTS INCLUDE ZEROING
OUT THE FAMILY STABILIZATION
PROGRAM, I CHECKED 44,000
FAMILIES AFFECTED. WHAT ARE THE
ESTIMATED CONSEQUENCES FOR THE
THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES WHO
RECEIVE FAMILY STABILIZATION?
WHO WILL LOSE CRISIS PREVENTION
SERVICES? APPRECIATE THE
QUESTION. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. AND
NOTED THAT THE FAMILY
STABILIZATION, AS WE HAVE
IDENTIFIED IS ACTUALLY OVER
UTILIZED. IN OTHER WORDS, OTHER
FUNDS ARE BEING ADDED TO MEET
THE NEEDS OF THOSE FAMILIES, SO
HERE I WOULD NOTE A FEW THINGS.
PART OF THE, MAIN USE OF THOSE
FUNDS TODAY IS IN SUPPORT OF
HOUSING SUPPORT. AND I WILL
INDICATE THAT THERE IS NO
PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE CALWORKS
HOUSING SUPPORT PROGRAM IN THE
IN THESE PROPOSALS. SO THAT IS A
CONTINUED SUPPORT THAT WILL BE
AVAILABLE, BUT AS IT RELATES TO
ADDITIONAL KIND OF CASE
MANAGEMENT, REALLY SUPPORTING
FAMILIES IN CRISIS, THE
LANDSCAPE CHANGE, I WOULD POINT
OUT HERE IS ACTUALLY NOT ON THE
SOCIAL SERVICE SIDE, BUT ON THE
HEALTH CARE SERVICES SIDE IN
TERMS OF THE TREMENDOUS WORK
THAT'S BEEN DONE TO BUILD
ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH IN
ADDITIONAL SERVICES. SO AGAIN,
NOT I'M NOT I'M NOT SUGGESTING
THEY ARE 1 TO 1 IN TERMS OF THE
EXACT SERVICE THAT WILL BE
PROVIDED, BUT THERE WILL BE
ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS AVAILABLE TO
FAMILIES IN CRISIS THAT DIDN'T
EXIST PREVIOUSLY. FROM THE
HEALTH CARE SERVICES SIDE. ALL
RIGHT. WELL I THANK YOU FOR THE
ANSWERS. I I THINK LIKE MY
COLLEAGUE, THERE ARE STILL SO
MANY QUESTIONS, BUT I DO KNOW
THAT, WHAT HAS WHAT IS BEING
PROPOSED REALLY WILL DECIMATE
MANY OF OUR PROGRAMS. AND IT'S
HARD TO COME BACK FROM WHEN YOUR
BENEFITS ARE CUT AND YOU HAVE TO
LET PEOPLE GO. IT IS SO
DIFFICULT TO TRY TO REESTABLISH
THAT. AND THESE ARE HARD WORKING
PEOPLE WHO HAVE WORKED WITH WITH
SO LITTLE FOR SO LONG AND NOW TO
LOSE THAT JOB, EVEN AFTER ALL
THEIR SACRIFICES. REYES I, I
WOULD PREFER THAT WE WORK ON A
BUDGET THAT ASSISTS AND THAT
STABILIZES AND THAT THAT WE FIND
WAYS TO TAKE CARE OF THE WHOLE
PERSON, AND I KNOW THIS IS THE
COMMITTEE THAT'S GOING TO PUSH
FOR THAT, AND I HOPE THAT YOU
WILL ALWAYS LOOK TO THIS
COMMITTEE AND TO OUR CHAIR, TO
OUR PRIOR CHAIR, AND OF COURSE,
TO OUR AMAZING CONSULTANTS AT
WORK HERE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
AND THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MISS REYES, MISS
PELLERIN, AND THEN MR. TING.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR, FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP IN THIS SPACE.
AND THANK YOU TO THE MEMBERS
WHO'VE BEEN SERVING ON THIS
COMMITTEE. IT'S VERY
DISHEARTENING AND DEVASTATING
BEING HERE AND LISTENING TO
EVERYTHING HERE TODAY, THE FACT
THAT WE'RE CUTTING THESE
ESSENTIAL PROGRAMS, THESE
LIFELINES FOR PEOPLE. CALWORKS,
IHSS MEALS ON WHEELS, CHILD CARE
PEOPLE. THIS IS NOT WHO WE ARE.
THIS IS NOT WHO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA IS. WE NEED TO
PRIORITIZE THOSE WHO CANNOT HELP
THEMSELVES THAT NEED THE MOST
HELP, THAT NEED, THAT ARE THE
MOST VULNERABLE AND I BELIEVE
THAT CUTTING THIS DOLLAR TODAY
IS GOING TO END UP COSTING US A
LOT MORE AND MONETARILY DOWN THE
ROAD, BUT IT'S ALSO GOING TO
COST PEOPLE'S HEALTH, THEIR
MENTAL HEALTH, THEIR PHYSICAL
HEALTH, THEIR WELL-BEING. IT'S
GOING TO COST OUR COMMUNITIES.
IT'S GOING TO SEND FAMILIES AND
INDIVIDUALS FURTHER INTO CRISIS.
WE CANNOT DO THAT TO PEOPLE. AS
A REPRESENTATIVE OF MY DISTRICT,
I, ALONG WITH AND I WANT TO
THANK ALL MY COLLEAGUES FOR
THEIR COMMENTS THEY MADE TODAY
BECAUSE YOU'VE REALLY JUST HIT
THE NAIL ON THE HEAD OF THE
SEVERITY OF THESE ACTIONS. IF
THEY'RE MAINTAINED, AND WE JUST
CANNOT GO BACK TO OUR DISTRICTS
AND SAY THAT WE'RE CUTTING YOUR
PROGRAMS, WE'RE MAKING LIFE
UNBEARABLE FOR YOU. AND SO I
JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR
BEING HERE TODAY AND DOING THIS
ESSENTIAL WORK, I HAD A COUPLE
QUESTIONS AROUND THE CHILD CARE
PIECE, THOSE BEING SO, ACCORDING
TO THE CALIFORNIA BUDGET POLICY
CENTER, THERE'S. AND WE'VE HEARD
THIS EARLIER, MORE THAN 2
MILLION CHILDREN ARE ELIGIBLE
FOR EARLY CHILD CARE AND
EDUCATION SPACE, BUT THE STATE
CURRENTLY ONLY SERVES 230,000
CHILDREN. AND SO GIVEN THE
SIGNIFICANT NEED, IS THE IS THE
ADMINISTRATION WILLING TO ADOPT
AN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE FOR
THE SPACES? ARE WE DOING THAT.
GABBY SANTORO, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE THE MAY REVISION DOES
NOT REFLECT A SPECIFIC TIMELINE
TO RESUME SLOT EXPANSION.
HOWEVER, WE ARE HAPPY TO ENGAGE
WITH THE LEGISLATURE TO CONSIDER
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS. OKAY AND
BUT BUT THEN ALSO, MISS PILLAR,
I KNOW WE ARE WORKING WITH LÀ AS
OUR GOAL TO ALSO ADOPT TRIGGER
LANGUAGE SO THAT JUST LIKE IN
OTHER CASES WITH THE CORPORATE
TAX CREDITS, HOW THERE'S A
TRIGGER IN THAT SIGNALING A
PRIORITY. WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE
ASKING FOR A TRIGGER FOR CHILD
CARE AS WELL. VERY GOOD OKAY.
THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S HELPFUL.
THANK YOU. AND AS PART OF THE
PROPOSAL TO END THE CHILD CARE
SLOT EXPANSION, DOES THE
ADMINISTRATION PLAN TO RESCIND
THE CHILD CARE SLOT AWARD
LETTERS THAT WERE RECENTLY
ISSUED IN THE SPRING OF THIS
YEAR? AND WHERE DOES THE
ADMINISTRATION DERIVE THE
AUTHORITY TO RESCIND SLOTS
APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE
IN THE 2023 BUDGET ACT? THANK
YOU FOR THE QUESTION. JENNIFER
TROYA FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES. WE DID ISSUE A
TENTATIVE AWARD LETTERS IN THE
END OF APRIL THIS YEAR, TO OUR
GENERAL CHILD CARE OR CTR
PROVIDERS. SO THE CENTERS WITH
WHOM WE CONTRACT DIRECTLY, WE
NOTIFIED THEM AT THE AT THE TIME
WE NOTIFIED THEM, AS WE ALWAYS
DO, THAT THE FINALIZATION OF
THOSE AWARDS IS SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATION. SO WE WILL BE
NOTIFYING THEM OF THE MAY
REVISION PROPOSAL FOR THE PAUSE.
AND ULTIMATELY, OUR FINAL
ACTIONS WILL BE DEPENDENT ON
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE FINAL
BUDGET. OKAY WELL, AGAIN, THIS
IS EXTREMELY DISHEARTENING. AND,
WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO WORK
HARDER AND MORE DILIGENTLY TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT SENDING
OUR FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS,
OUR CHILDREN, OUR SENIORS, OUR
MOST VULNERABLE HERE IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FURTHER
INTO CRISIS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR. TING. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. JUST HAD A
COUPLE QUESTIONS. APPRECIATE THE
DEPARTMENT FOR COMING, JUST
FOCUSING ON CALWORKS, A SECOND,
BASED ON THE VARIOUS, PROPOSALS
THAT YOU OUTLINED, WHAT DO YOU
ANTICIPATE IS THE, IMPACT ON THE
TYPICAL CALWORKS FAMILY? THANK
YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. SO,
REALLY, I THINK WHAT I WOULD SAY
THERE IS WHAT WE'RE LIKELY TO
SEE IS A SMALLER OFFERING OF
SERVICES. SO THAT'S FROM
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT, MENTAL
HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE, FAMILY
STABILIZATION. SO IN-HOME
VISITING, HOME VISITING I WILL
JUST MENTION IS ALSO SIMILARLY
SITUATED TO THE EMERGENCY CHILD
CARE BRIDGE, WHERE WE'RE LOOKING
TO REDUCE FUNDING TO
UTILIZATION. THERE IS A SLIGHT
CHANCE, BECAUSE THE UPTAKE HAS
INCREASED MORE RECENTLY, THAT
THERE COULD BE AN IMPACT OF
DISENROLLING THERE, BUT IN SOME
OF THE OTHER PLACES, AGAIN, JUST
WANT TO JUST WANT TO SPECIFY
THAT ALL PROPOSED REDUCTIONS
AREN'T EXACTLY SITUATED
SIMILARLY IN TERMS OF HOW
THEY'RE HOW THEY'RE PROPOSED. SO
A REDUCED, ACCESS TO THE ARRAY
OF SERVICES AS IT RELATES TO
SOME OF THE EARLIER CONVERSATION
IN CASE MANAGEMENT, WHILE WE ARE
OUR EMPLOYMENT, COMPONENT OF THE
SINGLE ALLOCATION IS PROPOSED TO
ALSO BE TO UTILIZATION BECAUSE
THE FUNDS ARE FUNGIBLE BETWEEN
THE SINGLE ALLOCATION OF
EMPLOYMENT, ELIGIBILITY VÆ AND
CAL LEARN, THERE'S LIKELY TO SEE
SOME REDUCED CASE MANAGEMENT. SO
THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD
LIKELY SEE IN TERMS OF IMPACT.
GOT IT. JUST TO FOCUS FOR A
SECOND ON HOME VISITING. I KNOW
DOCTOR ARAMBULA WAS A BIG
CHAMPION AND WE'VE SEEN SUCH.
WELL, AGAIN, LET ME JUST STEP
BACK FOR A SECOND. I MEAN, LET
ME JUST STATE THE OBVIOUS. I
THINK THERE'S NO ONE IN THE ROOM
INCLUDING YOURSELVES, THAT IS
OUT HERE SAYING THESE ARE GREAT
CUTS, RIGHT? I MEAN, THERE'S NO
ONE ADVOCATING AND SAYING, THIS
IS THESE ARE WONDERFUL, RIGHT?
SO LET'S LET'S JUST, YOU KNOW,
LET'S WE'RE ALL I THINK WE'RE
ALL TRYING TO BE ON THE SAME
SIDE HERE. AND I THINK FROM OUR
POINT OF VIEW, WE'RE JUST TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT
BETTER WHY THESE VERSUS OTHER
THINGS. RIGHT. AT LEAST THAT'S
THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM. I
KNOW WITH HOME VISITING IN
PARTICULAR STARTED AS A PILOT
IS, YOU KNOW, MY UNDERSTANDING,
YOU SHOULD CORRECT ME IF I'M
WRONG THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN
GOOD, GOOD RESULTS FROM HOME
VISITING. SO I THINK THIS IS IN
PARTICULAR A FAIRLY PAINFUL,
CUT. SO JUST TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND, THE, THE, THE
MINDSET OF, OF SORT OF ROLLING
THIS BACK VERSUS SAY, SOME
SOMETHING ELSE, JUST BECAUSE I
KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU
TOUCH THE FAMILIES AND IT'S, YOU
KNOW, IT'S NOT EASY TO GET INTO
HOMES, BUT WHEN YOU DO THAT, YOU
DO SEE GOOD RESULTS. SO JUST TO,
COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER, WE ARE SEEING
POSITIVE IMPACT FROM THOSE
PARTICIPATING IN VOLUNTARY HOME
VISITING IN THE CALWORKS
PROGRAM. AND AGAIN, I WOULD SAY
THAT AGAIN, THIS PARTICULAR
PROPOSAL IS CLOSER TO ALIGNING
TO UTILIZATION VERSUS A COMPLETE
ELIMINATION BEING PROPOSED HERE,
AGAIN, BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN THAT
GREATER UPTAKE, THERE'S A
POTENTIAL THAT WE WOULD EITHER
HAVE TO NOT ENROLL NEW FAMILIES
SOONER THAN WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE
OCCURRED, OR POTENTIALLY REDUCE
SERVICE. BUT AGAIN, IT'S CLOSER
TO UTILIZATION IN THIS
PARTICULAR PROPOSAL. SO TRYING
TO AT LEAST MAINTAIN THE,
MAINTAIN THE SAME NUMBER OF
FAMILIES WHO ARE IN THE PROGRAM,
THEY MAY HAVE HAVE LESS
SERVICING AND LESS TOUCHING, YOU
KNOW, LESS FEWER INTERACTIONS.
BUT AGAIN, TRYING TO AT LEAST
KEEP THE SAME NUMBER OF FAMILIES
IN THERE AND PERHAPS THE NEWER
FAMILIES THERE WILL BE FEWER
NEWER FAMILIES. CORRECT? OKAY.
UNDERSTOOD JUST GOING TO CAL,
CAL FRESH FOR A SECOND. SAME,
SAME KIND OF QUESTION. JUST
UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU FEEL LIKE
THE IMPACTS, WOULD BE IN TERMS
OF IF I'M A, IF I'M A CALFRESH
FAMILY, WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN TO
ME FOR CALFRESH, FOR THOSE WHO
ARE CURRENTLY ENROLLED, WE'RE
ACTUALLY NOT PROPOSING,
REDUCTIONS. THE TWO AREAS ARE
RELATED TO FOOD AND NUTRITION.
OAN. WE HAVE THE PROPOSED DELAY
OF THE CALIFORNIA FOOD
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. SO THAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN WOULD HAVE BEEN
NEWLY ENROLLED CALFRESH
INDIVIDUALS WHO WON'T OTHERWISE
THAT'LL BE DELAYED BY TWO YEARS
WHO WOULDN'T OTHERWISE RECEIVE
THE BENEFIT. BUT FOR EXISTING
CALFRESH, THERE'S NOT A PROPOSED
IMPACT HERE. THE NUTRITION
BENEFIT PILOT, I SHOULD SAY, IS
THE OTHER PROPOSAL WE'RE
PROPOSING NOT TO ESSENTIALLY
LAUNCH. IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T IT
HASN'T ALREADY LAUNCHED TO DATE.
YEAH AND JUST GOING BACK TO THE
TRIGGER QUESTION, SORRY, I WAS
OUT OF THE ROOM FOR, FOR A FEW
MINUTES. KNOWING THAT AT LEAST
THE LAST 4 OR 5 BUDGETS WE'VE
BEEN FRANKLY, WAY OFF IN TERMS
OF REVENUES, THE, YOU KNOW,
WE'VE WE'VE BEEN OFF IN A IN A
GOOD WAY FOR A NUMBER OF,
BUDGETS. IS THERE A REASON WHY,
THERE WEREN'T MORE TRIGGERS
EMPLOYED, SAVE WITH CALWORKS,
SAVE WITH SOME OF THESE, YOU
KNOW, AGAIN, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT FOOD ASSISTANCE, REALLY
WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY THERE
WEREN'T TRIGGERS SINCE, AGAIN,
WE WERE $20 BILLION OFF THIS
YEAR'S BUDGET, THE ONE YEAR
WE'RE CURRENTLY IN. WE WERE OFF
ON THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S BUDGET,
JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, GIVEN
THESE CRITICAL PROGRAM AREAS,
WHY NOT MORE TRIGGERS? YEAH, I
APPRECIATE THE QUESTION,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CHANG, BUT, LIKE
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, THE MAY
REVISION IS A PROPOSAL. SO THE
ADMINISTRATION IS HAPPY TO
HEARING ANY ALTERNATIVES OR
OPTIONS THAT THE LEGISLATURE
DOES HAVE. OKAY. SO THERE'S I
DIDN'T HEAR A LOT OF OPPOSITION
TO TRIGGERS THEN, MR. CHAIR.
THAT'S WHAT I HEARD, I WOULD I
WOULD JUST OFFER TO YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, THAT IT IS THE
ACTUAL, FOR EXAMPLE, IN CALWORKS
THE SUBACCOUNT THAT IS ALLOWING
US TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE WITH
THE CALWORKS GRANT INCREASE
PROPOSED IN OCTOBER OF NEXT
YEAR. SO I WOULD NOTE THAT WE
BECAUSE OF THAT STRUCTURE, WE'RE
WE'RE ABLE TO CONTINUE OFFERING
THAT GRANT INCREASE TO FAMILIES
PARTICIPATING IN CALWORKS. GOT
IT. SO MAINTAINING THAT
SUBACCOUNT, I ONE THING I WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT IS WE'RE USING
THE, THE ENTIRE $900 MILLION
RESERVE, AND JUST TRYING TO
ENSURE THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE, WE SAVE THAT RESERVE TO
REALLY MAINTAIN SERVICE LEVEL
PROVISION ACROSS THE BOARD, NOT
JUST IN THIS AREA, BUT ALSO IN
MEDI-CAL. AND, ARE WE ABLE TO DO
THAT? I SEE SOMEONE ELSE COMING
TO PERHAPS ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
YEAH, I'M FROM FINANCE. SO AT
THIS TIME WE'RE PROPOSING TO
WITHDRAW THE FULL RESERVE. AND
THAT'S DUE TO INCREASED CASELOAD
IN BOTH THE MEDI-CAL AND THE
CALWORKS PROGRAMS. AND THEN,
WELL, HOW DO WE KEEP SERVING
THAT CASELOAD? I GUESS BECAUSE
THAT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE
RESERVE WAS TO BE ABLE TO TRY TO
MAINTAIN, AS BEST WE COULD, THAT
CASELOAD RATHER THAN HAVE PEOPLE
ON OFF. RIGHT. SO WITH BY
WITHDRAWING THE SAFETY NET
RESERVE, WE'RE ADDRESSING THAT
BUDGET SHORTFALL. SO THEN
FURTHER CUTS IN BOTH THE
MEDI-CAL AND THE CALWORKS
PROGRAMS ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR
THAT INCREASED CASELOAD. AND DO
WE ANTICIPATE IN YEAR TWO, YEAR
THREE THAT WE WON'T BASED ON OUR
PROJECTIONS TODAY? SO BASED ON
YOU'RE TAKING THAT RESERVE BASED
ON THE PROJECTIONS FOR NEXT YEAR
AND THE YEAR AFTER, DOES THAT
MEAN WE CAN IT HOPES TO HOLD
FOLKS HARMLESS, RIGHT. SO WITH
THE MAY REVISION PROPOSALS, WE
DO PRESENT A BALANCED BUDGET AND
CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AND THE OUT
YEARS CURRENTLY. SO THE GOAL IS
TAKE THAT RESERVE AND KEEP
PROVIDING THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE.
FOR, FOR FOLKS, ONE AREA THAT I
WAS IN PARTICULAR CONCERNED WAS
THE, THE CUT IN THE SUPERVISED
INDEPENDENT LIVING PLACEMENT
PROGRAM FOR FOSTER CHILDREN, MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S ANOTHER
, SORT OF, PLACE, THERE'S
ANOTHER PLACE WHERE THERE'S,
WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS
THAT ISSUE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
HAD, THERE'S ANOTHER FOSTER RATE
IN FOSTER YOUTH, RATE INCREASE,
TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. SO I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN TALK TO
THAT. SURE, A COUPLE OF YEARS
AGO, AS YOU CERTAINLY RECALL, WE
ADOPTED A SUPERVISED INDEPENDENT
LIVING PROGRAM RATE SUPPLEMENT
WITH THE INTENTION OF BETTER
ADDRESSING THE COST OF LIVING
AND SOME OF THE HIGHER COST
PLACES WITHIN THE STATE THAT HAS
NOT YET TAKEN EFFECT ON THE
NATURAL AND IMPLEMENTATION
THÀNH. IN THE MEANTIME, IN THE
JANUARY BUDGET PROPOSAL, THE
GOVERNOR HAS PROPOSED A
PERMANENT RATE REFORM FOR THE
RATE STRUCTURE, WHICH WAS
STATUTORILY MANDATED TO BE
UPDATED UNDER THE CONTINUUM OF
CARE REFORM. THAT RATE REFORM IS
AT THIS POINT PROPOSED TO TAKE
EFFECT AROUND A SIMILAR TIME TO
WHEN THE SUPERVISED INDEPENDENT
LIVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT WOULD
HAVE TAKEN EFFECT AND THAT RATE
REFORM INCLUDES VERY SIGNIFICANT
NEW INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING IN
THE RATE FOR THE SUPERVISED
INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM. IN
THE MAY REVISION, WE CLARIFIED
IN THE TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE FOR
THAT PROPOSAL, THE STRUCTURE OF
HOW THE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
WOULD FLOW, AND IN PARTICULAR,
CLARIFIED THAT THE ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES FOR STRENGTH BUILDING
WOULD FLOW DIRECTLY TO THE YOUTH
OR THE NON-MINOR DEPENDENT, WHO
WAS LIVING IN A SUPERVISED,
INDEPENDENT LIVING SETTING AS A
RESULT, IN ABOUT 96% OF CASES,
THOSE YOUTH WOULD RECEIVE HIGHER
RATES UNDER THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL THAN THEY WOULD HAVE
UNDER THE SELF SUPPLEMENT.
GREAT. THANK YOU. JUST GOING
BACK TO CALFRESH FOR ONE SECOND.
SO, SO THERE'S THE WORK
INCENTIVE NUTRITION SUPPLEMENT
PROGRAM, WHERE YOU'RE PROPOSING
TO, YES, REDUCE THE $10
SUPPLEMENT FOR ABOUT 124,000
FAMILIES, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WOULD
HAVE THAT IMPACT. COULD YOU
COULD YOU JUST KIND OF THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. I APOLOGIZE FOR
NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IN THE IN
THE CALFRESH EARLIER. YES.
THAT'S CORRECT. THIS IS, WE HAVE
PROVIDED THIS ADDITIONAL $10,
PER HOUSEHOLD TO ESSENTIALLY
THOSE THAT ARE FAMILIES
PARTICIPATING IN CALFRESH HAVE
RECEIVED THAT $10. THEREFORE, WE
WERE ABLE TO COUNT THEM IN OUR
WORK PARTICIPATION RATE AT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AND THAT WAS
THE ONLY METRIC. AND IT STILL IS
THAT THEY ONLY HAVE THE PILOTS
GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK
AT MORE METRICS, MORE
HOLISTICALLY. BUT YES, THAT WHAT
HAS ALSO HAPPENED IS THAT THE
FEDERAL RELIEF ACT, THE FEDERAL
LEVEL, HAS CHANGED HOW THEY
COUNT, THE RATE. SO ESSENTIALLY,
WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED THE
WINS PROGRAM TO MEET THE UPPER
TARGET. WE'RE AT A PLACE WHERE
THAT'S NOT A PENALTY ADDRESSED,
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT
THERE'S NOT IMPACT TO THOSE WHO
WERE OTHERWISE RECEIVING THAT
$10 BENEFIT. BUT IS SO ARE YOU
SAYING THAT, IN YOUR MIND THAT
THE BECAUSE THE RATE INCREASE IS
GOING UP, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
THAT THAT THE FAMILIES WON'T SEE
A DIFFERENCE OR THEY WILL SEE A
DIFFERENCE. NO, THEY WILL SEE A
DIFFERENCE. THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN
RECEIVING WINS WILL SEE THAT $10
REDUCTION UNDER THIS PROPOSAL,
THE FEDERAL OUR STATE FISCAL
PENALTY IS NO LONGER A THREAT
BASED ON THE FEDERAL. THE
CHANGES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
AND DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OF
WHAT YOU KNOW, WHAT THIS WOULD
MEAN FOR THOSE FAMILIES? I GUESS
TEN, $10 SOUNDS LIKE A SMALL
AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR US. BUT FOR
FAMILIES WHO CERTAINLY KNOW,
CERTAINLY, I JUST COMPLETELY
APPRECIATE THE POINT THAT IN
TERMS OF OUR WORK TO AGAIN
ADDRESS HUNGER, THAT EVERY
DOLLAR COUNTS. SO APPRECIATE
THAT POINT VERY MUCH. AND I
WOULD JUST ALSO NOTE IN THAT
SAME FEDERAL RELIEF ACT, THE
OTHER PROVISION THAT WAS
INCLUDED THERE WAS THAT IF SUCH
A BENEFIT WERE TO BE INCLUDED BY
A STATE, IT NEEDED TO BE A
MINIMUM OF $35. SO ACTUALLY THE
FEDERAL. SO WE HAD TWO CHOICES
HERE. ONE, TO SAY THAT WE DON'T
PROVIDE THE BENEFIT, WHICH
AGAIN, WE DON'T NEED IT TO COUNT
TOWARDS WORK PARTICIPATION RATE.
THEREFORE, REDUCING OUR RISK FOR
A FISCAL PENALTY, BUT IF WE WERE
TO PROVIDE, IT WOULD NEED TO
ACTUALLY INCREASE TO BE ABLE TO
COUNT FOR THE FEDERAL PURPOSES.
BUT IN TERMS OF DOLLARS FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED,
CERTAINLY THAT COULD THAT CAN
HAVE AN IMPACT ON THEM,
POTENTIALLY FOOD BANKS AND OTHER
RESOURCES, WHICH I WOULD ALSO
ACKNOWLEDGE ARE, HAVE SEEN
QUITE, QUITE A BIT OF UPTAKE AS
WELL. SO BUT THAT WOULD BE AN
OPPORTUNITY AND A RESOURCE TO
THEM. ANYTHING YOU'D ADD. OKAY
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. DOCTOR ARAMBULA THANK
YOU. WE'VE HEARD ABOUT MANY OF
THE CHOICES THAT HAVE MADE, AND
I BELIEVE YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THE
CONCERN THAT THE MEMBERS HAVE
HAD ABOUT THOSE CHOICES. AND I
DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THERE
IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MAKE
DIFFERENT ONES. AND I'M HOPING
THROUGH THIS CONVERSATION, WE'RE
ABLE TO MAKE IT THE EASY CHOICE
TO LOOK TOWARDS OTHER WAYS IN
WHICH WE CAN ADDRESS THIS. I
WILL HIGHLIGHT SPECIFICALLY THAT
THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO DRAW
DOWN MORE OF THE RESERVE THAT WE
ARE CURRENTLY NOT UTILIZING. I
POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCE AND THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL BETWEEN
JANUARY AND MAY, AND THE SPACE
THAT STILL IS AVAILABLE FOR US
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
PROTECTING THE PROGRAMS THAT WE
FIND VALUABLE AND IMPORTANT. AND
I WOULD ALSO ASK US TO LOOK
TOWARDS REVENUE AND THROUGH THE
CHAIR WOULD POINT OUT THAT WE AS
A STATE ARE NOT TAXING MANY OF
OUR SERVICES, WHICH THE GOVERNOR
HAS AGAIN NOW STARTED MAKING
PUBLIC COMMENTS. LIKE MANY
STATES, AS TEXAS AND FLORIDA DO,
AND WOULD ASK US TO GET SOME
INFORMATION BACK AGAIN THROUGH
THE CHAIR ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD
MEAN FOR POLITICAL CONSULTANTS,
ACCOUNTANTS AND LAWYERS TO NOW
BE CONSIDERED POTENTIALS FOR
REVENUES FOR US TO MAKE SURE WE
ARE ADDRESSING OUR MOST
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. THAT'S
NOT EVEN ADDRESSING THE CAPITAL
NEEDS OR CAPITAL OPPORTUNITIES
THAT WE HAVE. AND I WILL LEAVE
THAT FOR MY COLLEAGUE HERE TO MY
LEFT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ADDRESS. BUT THOSE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR BOTH REVENUE AND FOR
RESERVES ARE OTHER WAYS IN WHICH
WE CAN CHOOSE TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE PROTECTING THESE PROGRAMS.
AND SO I'LL UPLIFT THE COMMENTS
FROM OUR COLLEAGUES REGARDING
THE CUTTING OF SENIOR NUTRITION,
THE IHSS FOR OUR UNDOCUMENTED,
THE HOME VISITING PROGRAM. WE
FOUGHT SO HARD FOR THE FERS, THE
FAMILY URGENT RESPONSE SYSTEM.
BUT I'LL BRING BACK SOME
INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT IT
WAS. IN 2016, WE BEGAN A RATE
STUDY. WE BEGAN TO IDENTIFY A
REAL ISSUE IN OUR DIRECT SERVICE
PROFESSIONALS, THOSE WHO ARE
SERVING OUR DISABILITY
COMMUNITY. AND WE'VE MADE A
PROMISE TO THEM HERE IN OUR
STATE WITH THE LANTERMAN ACT,
THAT WE ARE NOT FOLLOWING
THROUGH WITH TODAY, WHEN WE
DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY ARE REIMBURSED
APPROPRIATELY, WE'RE NOT THEN
ABLE TO GET SERVICES THAT OUR
DISABILITY COMMUNITY RELIES
UPON. AND SO I'M DEEPLY TROUBLED
THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TO
CONTINUE TO PUSH BACK A RATE
STUDY THAT CONCLUDED IN 2019.
PRIOR TO A PANDEMIC, THAT WE NOW
HAVE DIRECT SERVICE PROFESSIONAL
WHO ARE GETTING RECRUITED TO
OTHER JOBS INSTEAD OF SERVING
OUR MOST VULNERABLE IS A REAL
FAILURE ON OUR PART, AND WOULD
HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE THAT
THESE INVESTMENTS AND WHY SO
MANY OF US VALUED THEM, VALUED
THEM. HERE ON THIS DAIS, I WOULD
ALSO UPLIFT THE EMPLOYMENT FIRST
FOR OUR DISABILITY COMMUNITY AS
WE AS A STATE ARE STRUGGLING TO
REACH THE EMPLOYMENT NUMBERS FOR
A DISABILITY POPULATION AS OTHER
STATES DO. THESE EMPLOYMENT
FIRST DOLLARS WERE A GREAT WAY
FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE
EMPLOYING OUR DISABILITY
COMMUNITY AND GIVING THEM AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR SELF
DETERMINATION. I'D HIGHLIGHT ALL
OF OUR HOUSING SUPPORTS THAT
HAVE BEEN THREATENED. WE HEARD
ABOUT THE FAMILY STABILIZATION
PROGRAM. I WOULD HIGHLIGHT THE
INCOME LEVEL THAT'S REQUIRED TO
QUALIFY FOR THIS PROGRAM. A
FAMILY OF THREE HAS TO EARN LESS
THAN $13,000 A YEAR. I KNOW
THESE ARE NUMBERS THAT YOU KNOW,
BUT THERE ARE 44,000 FAMILIES
OUT THERE WHO ARE STRUGGLING TO
KEEP A ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD AND
FOOD ON THEIR TABLE. AT THAT
AMOUNT OF DOLLARS. AND THESE
FAMILIES STABILIZATIONS ARE THE
ONLY WAY IN WHICH WE'RE ABLE TO
GIVE THESE YOUNG FAMILIES, THESE
WOMEN OF COLOR, A FIGHTING
CHANCE AND BELIEVE THAT IT'S
AGAIN WHY WE INVESTED THESE
DOLLARS. BUT I'D HIGHLIGHT FOR
THE CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
PROGRAM, THE BRINGING FAMILY
HOMES, THAT WE HAVE EVIDENCE
THAT THIS HELPS TO INCREASE
FAMILY REUNIFICATION NATION.
THUS, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
CUTTING THEM, WE'RE ALSO TALKING
ABOUT DECREASING FAMILY
REUNIFICATION. OVERALL, I'D
HIGHLIGHT FOR THE DISABILITY
COMMUNITY THE HOUSING AND
DISABILITY ADVOCACY PROGRAM AND
FOR THE APS, THE HOME SAFE
PROGRAM. WITHIN THAT, WE HAVE
SEEN THAT WE'VE DOUBLED THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEARLY
DOUBLED THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
SERVED WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR,
WHEN WE DECREASED THE AGE FROM
65 TO 60. THAT IS ANOTHER CUT
THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT
NOW IN INCREASING THAT AGE BY
NOT ALLOWING US TO GET UPSTREAM,
BY NOT ALLOWING OUR,
BUREAUCRACIES TO ENGAGE AND
IDENTIFY THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT
EARLY ON WERE INCREASING THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR ELDERS TO
BECOME HOMELESS. WE SHOULD LOOK
AT THE DATA AND RECOGNIZE THAT
THEY ARE THE LARGEST PORTION OF
THOSE WHO ARE BECOMING HOMELESS,
WHICH IS WHY THIS PROGRAM WAS SO
IMPERATIVE AND I HAVE DEEP
CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS
FOR US AS A STATE AND OUR
ABILITY TO ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS
WHEN WE'RE CUTTING THE VITAL
HOUSING SUPPORT SERVICES THAT
ARE VULNERABLE POPULATIONS NEED.
I'D ALSO POINT OUT, IF I CAN,
THE RESOURCE FAMILY CAREGIVER
APPROVAL PROCESS. I'D LIKE TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT WE CURRENTLY
RIGHT NOW ARE NOT MEETING OUR
STATUTORY GUIDELINES. WE'RE
SUPPOSED TO HAVE THOSE APPROVALS
WITHIN 90 DAYS. WE'RE AT 136
DAYS TODAY. I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT
THUS REMOVING MONEY FROM THAT,
THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO
IMPROVE UPON THAT AND THEN MEET
OUR STATUTORY GUIDELINES AND SO
I BELIEVE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT
FOR US TO HAVE A MORE HOLISTIC
VIEW WHEN DEALING WITH A BUDGET
THAN SIMPLY TRYING TO DEAL WITH
THE MATH PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE.
BUT I HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE ADDRESSING CALWORKS. AND I
KNOW THAT YOU'RE HEARING ABOUT
IT FROM THE FAMILY
STABILIZATION, BUT WE ALSO HAVE
HOME VISITING, THE SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT AND THE INTENSIVE
CASE MANAGEMENT. MANY TIMES WE
HAVE TO ADDRESS THE MULTIPLE
BARRIERS THAT THEY HAVE, WHETHER
OR NOT IT'S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR
SUBSTANCE ABUSE OR JUST TRAUMA
FROM ABJECT POVERTY. SO MANY OF
THESE FAMILIES NEED INTENSIVE
CASE MANAGEMENT. AND THOSE HOURS
ARE IMPERATIVE FOR US TO MAKE
SURE WE'RE PROVIDING THOSE
NEEDED RESOURCES FROM THE SOCIAL
WORKERS THAT CURRENTLY WILL BE
DIMINISHED. AND I HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THE
FAMILIES WHO ARE BEING SERVED ON
THOSE PROGRAMS. I'D ALSO LIKE
TO, AT THE END, HIGHLIGHT THAT
WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF A FEDERAL
ELECTION AND THAT THERE'S A
POTENTIAL FOR THE NEXT
ADMINISTRATION TO LOOK MUCH
HARDER AT IMMIGRANT SERVICES AND
THE THREATS THAT CAN OCCUR FROM
THAT. I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE
CUTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED TO
OUR IMMIGRATION SERVICES, TO THE
RAPID RESPONSE AND TO THE
TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS. AND
I BELIEVE, TO THE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR YOUTH, WHICH WAS THE PROGRAM
THAT YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, A
PROGRAM THAT HELPS OUR
UNACCOMPANIED UNDOCUMENTED
MINORS FIND PEER SUPPORTS. WE
HAVE ONE OF THOSE IN FRESNO, AND
I'VE SEEN THOSE COHORTS AND
THOSE GROUPS OF YOUNG TEENAGERS
WHO HAVE NO ONE ELSE HERE IN
THIS COUNTRY, BUT ARE ABLE TO
LEAN UPON OUR BUREAUCRACY AND
OUR PROGRAMS TO FIND SUPPORTS.
AND THESE ARE HELPING PEOPLE IN
OUR STATES TO BE MORE SUCCESSFUL
LONG TERM. AND I FEEL IN A LARGE
PART THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS
NOT SEEING THE BIG PICTURE. AND
I'D ASK US TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE MAKING CHOICES THAT ARE
FOCUSED ON THE PEOPLE AND NOT
SIMPLY SOLVING A MATH PROBLEM.
THE CONCERNS ARE HEARD BY MANY
OF US HERE ON THIS DAIS. WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION, BUT WHAT WAS
PRESENTED TO US IN MAY WAS A
FALSE CHOICE. THAT'S NOT
SOMETHING MANY OF US ARE REALLY
LOOKING AT OR CONSIDERING IN
TOTALITY, BECAUSE THESE
PROGRAMMATIC CUTS WOULD BE TOO
HARMFUL. THEY WOULD HURT OUR
COMMUNITIES, AND MANY OF US
CANNOT STAND FOR THAT. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU,
DOCTOR ARAMBULA. MISS REYES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I KNOW I
HAD MY CHANCE TO TALK EARLIER,
BUT THERE WAS ONE AREA I WILL
TELL YOU, EVERY YEAR WE HAVE A
SENIOR ADVOCACY WEEK WHERE WE
VISIT SENIOR CENTERS, SENIOR
HOUSING, EVERYTHING RELATING TO
OUR SENIORS. AND WHEN I TALKED
TO MY MOTHER ABOUT THIS, SHE
SAYS, MIA, REMEMBER, YOU TOO ARE
A SENIOR. SO LET ME SO LET ME
ASK A QUESTION THAT I AM
CONCERNED CONCERNED ABOUT THE
PROPOSED CUTS TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGING. THIS INCLUDES THE
ELIMINATION OF FUNDING FOR
SENIOR NUTRITION AND THE
ELIMINATION OF THE OLDER ADULT
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PROGRAM. HAVE
WE EVALUATED THE IMPACT THESE
CUTS WILL HAVE ON OLDER ADULTS?
AND AS MY COLLEAGUE COMMENTED
EARLIER, MANY OLDER ADULTS ARE
FALLING INTO HOMELESSNESS IN OUR
STATE. IT'S UNACCEPTABLE. AND
THE TRUTH IS, WE CAN'T ALLOW
THIS TO HAPPEN. SO HAVE WE
EVALUATED THE IMPACT OF THESE
CUTS ON OLDER ADULTS, YES, WE
HAVE, MARK BECKLEY, SORRY,
CATCHING MY BREATH HERE FOR A
SECOND, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
AGING, CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
YES. SO WE THERE IS A PROPOSED
REDUCTION OF 111 MILLION FOR,
ONE TIME, FUNDING THAT IS TO
CONTINUE, MEALS FOR, COVID ERA
PROGRAMS, SPECIFICALLY. WHAT THE
WHAT THE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING OR
WHAT C4 WAS LOOKING TO DO IS TO
CONTINUE ARPA FUNDING AND HOME
AND COMMUNITY SERVICES BASED
FUNDING. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
111 MILLION, AND WHAT THAT
BREAKS OUT TO BE IS
APPROXIMATELY $37 MILLION A
YEAR, 36 MILLION OF THAT IS
REALLY COMPRISED, OR IT'S A
TOTAL PROBLEM OF 36, BY OUR
CALCULATION OF THAT, ABOUT 25.6
IS RELATED TO ANNUALIZED ARPA
FUNDING. AND THEN 10.4 IS
RELATED TO, HOME AND COMMUNITY
BASED SERVICES FUNDING. SO THAT
CREATES YOUR OVERALL PROBLEM
THAT IS SEEKING TO BE SOLVED
WITH THIS FUNDING OF 36 MILLION,
IN THE CURRENT YEAR, WE RECEIVED
AN UNEXPECTED BUT VERY WELCOME
INCREASE TO BASELINE, OLDER
AMERICANS ACT FUNDING FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF 15
MILLION. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT,
IT REALLY REDUCES YOUR PROBLEM
DOWN TO A NET OF 21 MILLION,
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF
MITIGATING, FUNDING POTS THAT WE
THINK WOULD HELP CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE FUNDING TO OLDER ADULTS,
AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS,
FIRST IS IN THE CURRENT YEAR. WE
RECEIVED, AN ALLOCATION OF 15
MILLION FOR THE FIRST
INSTALLMENT, OLDER CALIFORNIANS
ACT MODERNIZATION, NUTRITION
FUNDING. AND THEN SECOND, WE
HAVE 53 MILLION FOR OLDER
CALIFORNIANS ACT MODERNIZATION,
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FUNDING.
THAT SECOND POT OF MONEY WAS
REALLY INTENDED FOR LEGAL
SERVICES, TRANSPORTATION, AND TO
RESTORE SOME OLDER CALIFORNIANS
ACT MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS THAT
WERE ELIMINATED IN THE 2009 TEN
RECESSION. WHAT THE DEPARTMENT
IS PROPOSING TO DO IS TO ALLOW
THE TRIPLE A'S ON A PRIORITY
BASIS, TO USE THAT MONEY FOR
NUTRITION, THAT FUNDING WOULD BE
AVAILABLE LIKE I SAY TO THEM FOR
THE NEXT TWO YEARS. SO IF YOU
LOOK AT THE 53 MILLION ON AN
ANNUALIZED BASIS FOR INSTANCE,
THAT'S AROUND 25 TO $26 MILLION
A YEAR. THAT WOULD CLOSE THE $21
MILLION GAP THAT WE'VE
IDENTIFIED, SO THAT WOULD BE ONE
WAY OF MITIGATING THE PROBLEM.
WE WOULD ALSO PROPOSE TO
REDIRECT INDIVIDUALS. AND I KNOW
THAT THERE'S BEEN CUTS TO A LOT
OF DIFFERENT NUTRITION PROGRAMS,
BUT, YOU KNOW, PROGRAMS LIKE CAL
LANE, MEDICALLY TAILORED MEALS,
CAL FRESH FOOD BANKS, SO WE
WOULD WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH
THE TRIPLE A'S TO IDENTIFY
MITIGATION STRATEGIES, BUT
THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF OUR
PROPOSAL IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC
IMPACTS. THE ONLY THING I'LL ADD
IS THE ARPA FUNDS AND THE HCBS
FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE
TRIPLE A'S THROUGH THE COURSE OF
THE NEXT YEAR. WE REALLY WON'T
KNOW THE SPEND RATES ON THOSE
PROGRAMS UNTIL LATE NEXT YEAR,
BUT AGAIN, WE THINK THAT WITH
THESE OTHER ONE TIME POTS OF
MONEY, YOU COULD BRIDGE THE
NUTRITION GAP FOR AT LEAST
ANOTHER TWO YEARS IN. I THINK
PART OF THE CONCERN IS THAT IF
THE AREA AGENCIES USE THIS MONEY
THAT'S FLEXIBLE FOR MEALS, THEN
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO
WITHOUT IN OTHER AREAS AND
THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM. SO
JUST KEEPING THAT IN MIND, AS WE
KNOW, OUR AREA AGENCIES ARE
GOING TO DO EVERYTHING IN A VERY
RESPONSIBLE WAY. BUT IF THEY
HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THE MEALS
BECAUSE THEY'RE GIVEN THIS
FLEXIBILITY, THERE MAY BE
PROBLEMS IN OTHER AREAS.
UNDERSTOOD. AND JUST ANOTHER
THING I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT
IS THE BASELINE FUNDING FOR
SENIOR NUTRITION IS PROTECTED.
SO THAT'S AT ABOUT 166 MILLION.
THAT BASELINE HAS INCREASED
SINCE 2018, 2019. ABOUT 68, OR
67 MILLION, $67.5 MILLION. SO
WE'RE SERVING MORE CALIFORNIANS
THAN EVER IN THE STATE, ABOUT
100,000 MORE INDIVIDUALS ARE
SERVED THROUGH SENIOR NUTRITION
AND ABOUT 3 MILLION ADDITIONAL
CLIENTS. SO AGAIN, WE JUST
REALLY WANT TO GIVE A LOT OF,
YOU KNOW, SORT OF LIKE THANKS
AND APPRECIATION TO OUR TRIPLE
A'S FOR EXPANDING MEALS AND
SERVING MORE SENIORS DURING THE
COVID PANDEMIC, BUT WE OVERALL,
THAT THE BASELINE IS BEING
PROTECTED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, FOR ALLOWING ME TO
ADD THAT QUESTION. ABSOLUTELY.
VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION, WE'RE
GOING TO WRAP IT UP WITH, MR.
LEE, AND THEN WE WILL GO INTO
PUBLIC COMMENT, AND WE'RE GOING
TO HOLD PUBLIC COMMENT, ONE
MINUTE EACH. WE HAVE TO REPORT
TO THE FLOOR PRETTY SOON. SO,
LET'S TRY TO DO OUR BEST. I'LL
TAKE THAT AS MY CUE TO BE BRIEF,
MR. CHAIR. I WILL SAY, MR.
CHAIR, IT IS NICE TO HAVE A LOT
OF GOOD COMPANY ON THE DAIS. NOW
AND IT'S JUST NOT YOU AND ME, SO
I JUST TO WARN OUR PRESENT
PRESENTERS. I HAVE A COUPLE
QUESTIONS ON IHSS ID ID AND THE
FERS FAMILY URGENT RESPONSE
SYSTEM. I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO
BE SOME CYCLING. I'LL START WITH
IHSS IN A SECOND, BUT I JUST
WANT TO COMMENT THAT, TO ADD ON
TO ALL THE EXCELLENT COMMENTS
FROM OUR COLLEAGUES TODAY, IS
THAT OUR STATE BUDGET IS MORE
THAN A NUMBERS GAME. IT MUST BE
BALANCING OUR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO DO SO. AND I
SHARE A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES
CONCERN IN THAT WE AREN'T
ASSESSING THE IMPACT TO OUR
MISSION, OUR CORE MISSION, JUST
AS ANY FORTUNE 500 COMPANY IN MY
DISTRICT IN SILICON VALLEY, THEY
ASSESS WHAT IS THEIR POWER TO DO
THE ACTUAL SOCIETAL OUTCOMES OR
WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO. RIGHT.
SO AS YOU HEAR THE COMMENTS, I
HOPE THE ADMINISTRATION WILL
UNDERSTAND IS THAT WE ARE
CONCERNED THAT MORE THAN JUST
BALANCING THE BUDGET, WE ARE
CONCERNED THAT HOW WILL THIS
IMPACT FAMILIES? HOW WILL THIS,
HURT OUR MISSION TO UPLIFT
PEOPLE IN POVERTY? THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN THIS
SECONDARY TERTIARY EXAMPLES. AND
IT'S GOING TO BE SOME OF MY
QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS LATER ON. AND SO
THAT'S WHY WE'RE REALLY
CONCERNED ABOUT IT. AND I THINK
YOU'RE HEARING THAT FROM A LOT
OF OUR COLLEAGUES. THAT'S QUITE
UNACCEPTABLE. TRY TO BALANCE THE
BUDGET OFF OF THOSE WHO ARE IN
POVERTY, SO FIRST I WANT TO ASK
A QUESTION ABOUT IHSS, SO IT IS
PROPOSED TO MY UNDERSTANDING
THAT IHSS IS GOING TO SERVICES
FOR BASED ON, BASED ON
IMMIGRATION STATUS IS GOING TO
BE ELIMINATED, AND THE
ADMINISTRATION IS ASKING FOR
STATUTORY ELIMINATION AS WELL.
IS THAT CORRECT OF THE PROGRAM?
YEAH, ELISABETTA'S DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, YES. THERE WILL BE,
TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
ACCOMPANYING THIS PROPOSAL. SO
MY QUESTION IS, WHY IS IT DOES
IT NOT SUFFICE TO ELIMINATE IT?
BUDGETARILY BUT ALSO TO CLOSE
THE DOOR ON IT LEGALLY, BECAUSE
THAT WOULD MAKE IT HARDER TO
REOPEN IT ONE DAY SHOULD WE EVER
DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT TRIGGERS TODAY. SO
WHY WHY IS THE ADMINISTRATION
PROPOSING TO REPEAL IT
ALTOGETHER? CHAU DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, STATUTOR THREE CHANGES
ARE NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE
SOLUTION AND SO THE SOLUTION,
THE TVL, WHICH WILL BE
FORTHCOMING SOON, DOES INCLUDE
THOSE THOSE CHANGES. I DON'T
THINK WE CAN IMPLEMENT THE
SOLUTION WITHOUT STATUTORY
CHANGES. SO YOU'RE SAYING A
STATUTORY CHANGE IS NECESSARY
FOR THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF A
PROGRAM? IT'S TOUGH. IT'S NOT
FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE IHSS
PROGRAM, BUT, TO FOR
UNDOCUMENTED FAMILIES TO
IMPLEMENT. YEAH, FOR THE
UNDOCUMENTED. SO YOU'RE SAYING
SUCH A LANGUAGE IS NECESSARY TO
DO THAT, TO ELIMINATE IT? YES.
BECAUSE STATUTORY CHANGES WERE
ADDED WHEN WE, IMPLEMENTED THE
EXPANSION. RIGHT, RATHER THAN
SOMETIMES WE LOOK AT SOME
PROGRAMS OR FREEZING OR DELAYING
THEM TO BUDGETARILY. WE DON'T
HAVE TO GO AND DELETE THEM FROM
STATUTE ALTOGETHER. SO WHY WHY
NOT SAY, WELL, WE'RE JUST NOT
GOING TO DO IT THIS YEAR. IT'S
HAVE THE SAME EFFECT OUTCOME,
FISCAL AND REAL WORLD OUTCOME.
WHY CLOSE THE DOOR ON IT
BASICALLY FOREVER? WE'RE JUST
TRYING TO I'LL JUST SAY IF IT IF
IT WAS A PROGRAM THAT MAY, MAY
HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATION I'M SORRY, I CAN'T
I CAN'T HEAR. SORRY. IS THIS
BETTER? YEAH I WOULD JUST SAY
THAT IF IT WAS A PROGRAM THAT
WAS SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION OR
SOME SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT
THAT WE COULD, WE COULD DO WHAT
YOU'VE SUGGESTED, BUT THAT'S NOT
THE CASE IN THIS INSTANCE. OKAY.
WELL, THAT'S ONE OF MY BIG
CONCERNS ABOUT THAT AND
TARGETING, YOU KNOW, LIMITING
ACCESS FOR VERY REAL PEOPLE,
VERY REAL FAMILIES, BASED ON
THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS, I
THINK IS QUITE PROBLEMATIC TO
THE VALUES OF THIS BODY. I'LL
MOVE ON TO A QUESTION ABOUT THE
FAMILY URGENT RESPONSE SYSTEM,
WHICH WAS A CUT PROPOSED
ACTUALLY IN THE JANUARY PROPOSAL
AS WELL. IS THAT, SO RIGHT NOW,
THE PROPOSALS CUT $30 MILLION
FOR THE 24 OVER SEVEN HOTLINE
FOR FOSTER YOUTH AND FORMER
FOSTER YOUTH AND THEIR
CAREGIVERS IN TIMES OF CRISIS.
THIS WAS ONLY IMPLEMENTED FULLY
IN JULY OF 2021. SO IT'S A
RELATIVELY NEW PROGRAM, BUT
STILL EXISTING, SO I WANTED TO
ASK WHY THIS PROGRAM WAS
TARGETED, SINCE IT'S ONLY JUST
UP AND RUNNING WITH SOME
SUCCESS. AND WHAT WOULD THE
ALTERNATIVE BE IF THIS PROGRAM
WERE TO BE ELIMINATED? THE
HOTLINE. GLAD TO START WITH THIS
RESPONSE, REMEMBER A COUPLE OF
THINGS HERE, THIS IS, A I WILL
JUST NOTE THAT THIS PARTICULAR
PROGRAM, BUT TO YOUR POINT, HAS
BEEN MORE RECENTLY IMPLEMENTED,
WASN'T FULLY EXPENDED AT ITS
EXISTING RATE, SO IT WAS UNDER
EXPENDED, I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT
WHILE IT IS NOT AGAIN, YOU'VE
HEARD ME SAY THIS. NOT ONE FOR
ONE. I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT'S THE
SAME. BUT WE HAVE HAVE NEW
SUPPORTS IN THE MENTAL HEALTH
AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SIDE FROM
THE HEALTH CARE SERVICES THAT
THAT DIDN'T EXIST PRIOR TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS PROGRAM.
AGAIN, NOT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED
FOR THIS POPULATION, BUT IS AN
ACCESS IS ACCESSIBLE TO THE
POPULATION. AND GETTING SOME
RESOURCES THAT WOULDN'T HAVE
OTHERWISE EXISTED PRIOR TO THE
INVESTMENTS THAT WE'VE MADE.
SINCE YOU'RE SAYING IT'S UNDER
EXPENDED, CAN THE SAME LEVEL OF
SERVICE ENJOYED TODAY BE
MAINTAINED WITH LESS FUNDING
THAN A TOTAL ELIMINATION? THÀNH
YES. HOW MUCH WOULD THAT BE? I
CAN GIVE YOU, JUST FOR EXAMPLE,
TOTAL EXPENDITURES. YOU'LL HELP
ME HERE TO MAKE SURE I'M, TOTAL
EXPENDITURES IN 22, 23, WERE.
$11.5 MILLION. 9.5. OKAY. SO
CURRENT YEAR IS OBVIOUSLY STILL
IN PROCESS. WE COULD GIVE YOU
THOSE UPDATED FIGURES AS THEY'RE
AVAILABLE. BUT THAT WAS THAT'S
THAT'S AT THE HIGHEST RATE OF
EXPENDITURE FROM THE INCEPTION
OF THE PROGRAM. SO THE
ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE MORE
AMENABLE TO ADJUSTING TO A
CURRENT RATE OF SERVICE THAT A
TOTAL ELIMINATION ALTOGETHER OF
THE PROGRAM TO ADJUST TO, YOU
KNOW, AS YOU SEE IT, THE PROGRAM
COMING, BEING EXPENDED. I WE ARE
OPEN TO HAVING, DISCUSSIONS WITH
THE LEGISLATURE ON HOW TO CLOSE
THE BUDGET SHORTFALL. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, AND THEN MOVING ON,
I'M GOING TO HAVE A QUESTION
ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION OR THE
DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
RATE STUDY FOR IDD COMMUNITY.
AND, DOCTOR ARAMBULA ALREADY
PROVIDED A REALLY GREAT CONTEXT
FOR WHY THAT'S SO IMPORTANT.
AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHEN I
WAS LEGISLATIVE STAFF, I STILL
REMEMBER TRYING TO PURSUE JUST
THE RATE STUDY BILL IN THE FIRST
PLACE TO DO SO. AND NOW THAT THE
STUDY IS COMPLETE AND WE'RE
TRYING TO CATCH UP TO
PRE-PANDEMIC 2019 LEVELS, I DO
REMAIN VERY CONCERNED BECAUSE
THERE ARE MANY FAMILIES WHO ARE
LACKING ACCESS TO SERVICES. SO
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, CAN YOU
PLEASE TELL US HOW DELAYING THE
RATE REFORM WILL IMPACT
PROVIDERS AND CONSUMERS WHO ARE
ALREADY FACING SIGNIFICANT
DELAYS IN GETTING SERVICES THAT
THEY ARE ENTITLED TO? THANK YOU.
CARLGUARDINO. THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, WHILE WE
DO UNDERSTAND THAT ANY OF THE,
CHANGES TO THE PLANNED INCREASES
OR CHANGES TO RATES COULD HAVE
IMPACTS ON PROVIDERS, WE WERE
LOOKING AT SOLUTIONS THAT HAD AT
LEAST NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED. SO,
THINGS THAT ARE STILL IN THE
BUDGET SUPPORT WITH THE
WORKFORCE WOULD INCLUDE LIKE THE
DSP WORKFORCE AND TRAINING, THAT
WOULD PROVIDE A TIERED WAGE TO
SUPPORT THE DIRECT SUPPORT
STAFF, FOR FAMILIES, WE STILL
MAINTAIN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
WAIVER OF OPTIONS, AND THAT A
REGIONAL CENTER WOULD PROVIDE
THAT ON BEHALF OF THE
INDIVIDUAL. FROM THE PROVIDER'S
PERSPECTIVE. AND
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS, REALLY, IF I
MIGHT ADD, CHRIS O'NEIL,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. YOU KNOW,
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT THIS PROPOSAL ISN'T BEING
PUT FORWARD IN A VACUUM. WE'RE
WE'RE HEARING THE SAME CONCERNS
FROM THE COMMUNITY AND ENGAGING
WITH THOSE SAME INDIVIDUALS THAT
YOU ARE, WHEN LOOKING AT. AND I
THINK JUST AS A CHIEF DEPUTY
CASTANEDA INDICATED, THERE ARE
THERE'S STILL PROGRESS BEING
MADE ON OTHER KEY KEY
INVESTMENTS FOR THE FUTURE, LIKE
THE LIKE DSP TRAINING AND THOSE
OTHER PROJECTS. AND, YOU KNOW,
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DDS BUDGET,
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR THE DDS
BUDGET IS GOING TO INCREASE $2
BILLION YEAR OVER YEAR BETWEEN
CURRENT YEAR AND BUDGET YEAR,
AND MAINTAINS ABOUT $1 BILLION
TO SUPPORT RATE REFORM. SO WHILE
THAT ADJUSTMENT WON'T BE COMING
JULY 1ST, AS PROPOSED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION THÀNH, WE REALLY
DID TRY. WE LOOKED AT THIS AS
TRYING TO MAINTAIN, FUNDING
LEVELS AND RESOURCES WHERE THEY
ARE AND, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH
EYES OPEN ON AND, YOU KNOW, AND
HEARING THOSE CONCERNS TOO. BUT,
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE
CONSIDERATIONS THAT, YOU KNOW,
WE WERE LOOKING AT AND JUST SOME
OF THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD,
WOULD LIKE TO HELP PUT INTO
CONTEXT, AS YOU'RE CONSIDERING
THE TOTALITY OF THE BUDGET IN
THIS PROGRAM ESPECIALLY. YEAH, I
UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND THAT,
BUT THE REALITY IS DELAYING IT
FURTHER HAS A VERY REAL WORLD
CONSEQUENCES, RIGHT? EVEN IF
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A COUPLE OF
MONTHS AND I DON'T I DON'T BLAME
A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY SAYING
THAT, OH, WE'RE GOING TO DELAY
IT TO THE NEXT YEAR. THERE'S NO
GUARANTEE. OF COURSE WE COME
BACK AND WE SAY DELAY IT AGAIN.
I MEAN, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
KIND OF COME BACK AGAIN ON SOME
OF THE DEALS THAT WE THOUGHT
WERE CONCRETE AND HAVE COME BACK
ON IT. AND SO I REALLY WORRY
ABOUT HOW CHAU ALREADY AT THE
STATUS QUO IS MANY ID FAMILIES
ARE NOT GETTING THE SERVICES
THEY NEED AND HAVING MORE
DELAYS. EVEN IF WE SAY ON
ACCOUNTING WISE THERE'S MORE
MONEY ALL THAT STUFF OUT THERE.
BUT HONESTLY, I WANT TO SAY
FOCUS. A LOT OF THAT IS JUST THE
WAY WE LOOK AT THE ACCOUNTING.
AND THE REAL WORLD EFFECT IS
THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT GETTING
COMPENSATED ENOUGH TO DO THE
REALLY STRESSFUL WORK THEY'RE
DOING, SO I KNOW WE'RE SHORT ON
TIME, SO I'M GOING TO WRAP UP MY
COMMENTS A LITTLE BIT TO ALLOW
THE CHAIR AND FOR US TO GO ON TO
PUBLIC COMMENT. AND I JUST WANT
TO REMARK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
TOTALITY OF CUTS WE'RE LOOKING
AT IN THE HUMAN SERVICES SPACE
IS ABOUT 2.6 BILLION, CORRECT?
2.6 BILLION IF I'M WRONG. RIGHT?
OKAY. SO 2.6 BILLION OR SO, IN
2020, IN OUR CURRENT BUDGET
YEAR, 2324, HOW LARGE WAS OUR
HUMAN SERVICES BUDGET? SO THE
CURRENT YEAR WE'RE LIVING IN
RIGHT NOW. ROUGHLY
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS LEE, CHRIS
O'NEIL DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE I
DON'T HAVE THAT FIGURE ACROSS,
HHS, BUT I THINK WE COULD WORK
ON TRYING TO GET THAT FIGURE FOR
YOU. THANK YOU. THAT WOULD BE
THAT'D BE HELPFUL. BUT AS
ASSEMBLYMAN SANTIAGO TALKED
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ROUND IT UP.
OUR BUDGET IS ABOUT $300 MILLION
RIGHT NOW. AND HISTORICALLY, THE
HUMAN SERVICES BUDGET HAS ONLY
HAD LIKE 12% OF THE ENTIRE STATE
BUDGET, EVEN THOUGH A THIRD OF
CALIFORNIANS LIVE IN POVERTY, A
THIRD OF CALIFORNIANS LIVE IN
POVERTY. SO THE 2.52.6, SORRY,
$2.6 BILLION IN CUTS RIGHT NOW
FROM THE JANUARY PROPOSALS TO
THE MAY PROPOSALS, DOES POSSESS
A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SETBACK
IN OUR MISSION TO UPLIFT PEOPLE
OUT OF POVERTY, TO HELP THE
POOREST OF THE POOR AND THE
NEEDY, THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE
MOST NEED, THE MOST VULNERABLE
AND I THINK THAT'S WHY YOU'RE
HEARING SO MUCH CONCERN FROM MY
COLLEAGUES UP HERE, JUST TO
QUICKLY SAY AS, AS CHAIR OF THE
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE HERE, I
HELPED LEAD A EFFORT OR A LETTER
WHERE WE SIGNED WITH LIKE 20
PLUS MEMBERS ON MANY OF THE
ITEMS YOU HEARD TODAY. I WON'T
GO THROUGH ALL THE LIST, BUT ALL
OF THEM, MANY OF THE ITEMS HERE
TODAY, AND WE FIND IT
UNACCEPTABLE FOR THOSE THINGS TO
BE ELIMINATED OR DRASTICALLY
REDUCED BECAUSE IT'S OUR MISSION
TO HELP STABILIZE FAMILIES. SO
I'LL JUST END WITH SAYING THAT
THERE'S A LOT OF WORK TO BE
DONE. YOU'RE HEARING A LOT OF
HOPEFULLY CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK
OVER ON OUR SIDE THAT WE REALLY
VALUE THIS AREA. AND I HEARD A
LOT OF FEEDBACK ABOUT WANTING
DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS. AND OF
COURSE, DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS ARE
FOUND IN OTHER BUDGET AREAS WITH
OUR PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS SAID THAT
WE SHOULD HAVE PRISON
CONSOLIDATION. THAT'S A BILLION
RIGHT THERE, 2.6 BILLION
PROBLEM. AND WE HAVE A 1 BILLION
IDENTIFIED. SO I'LL TURN IT OVER
BACK TO YOU. MR. CHAIR. AND
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, I WANT TO THANK ALL THE
MEMBERS WHO HAVE JOINED US TODAY
FOR THIS, ROBUST DISCUSSION, I
KNOW THEY HAVE TO NOW HEAD TO
THE FLOOR WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE,
BUT, BUT WE WILL NOW BEGIN WITH,
PUBLIC COMMENT, AS A REMINDER,
WE WELCOME PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY
ISSUE ON THE AGENDA. AND WE HAVE
A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE
WHO WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
COMMENT. THEREFORE, WE WANT TO
URGE EVERYONE TO KEEP YOUR
COMMENTS BRIEF TO A MINUTE OR
LESS, PLEASE, SO THAT WE CAN
HEAR FROM EVERYONE AND SO THAT
WE DON'T HAVE TO, RECESS WHEN
THE FLOOR GOES BACK INTO
SESSION, SO WITH THAT, WE WILL
TAKE OUR FIRST NAME AND
AFFILIATION, PLEASE. EILEEN
COMENZÓ WITH THE COUNTY WELFARE
DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION. I'LL KEEP
MY COMMENTS BRIEF BECAUSE I
APPRECIATE YOU ALL HAVE MADE MY
POINTS FOR ME. BUT, HUMAN
SERVICES PROGRAMS THAT MY
MEMBERS ADMINISTER ARE TAKING
$1.3 BILLION WORTH OF CUTS
BETWEEN THE JANUARY AND MAY
REVISION. ALMOST 800 MILLION OF
THAT IS IN CALWORKS, 200 MILLION
IN CHILD WELFARE SERVICES,
ANOTHER 40. AND APPS WHICH SOUND
SMALL, RELATIVELY SPEAKING. BUT
THESE ARE CRITICAL LIFE SAVING
SERVICES AND WE URGE YOUR
REJECTION OF THE PROPOSALS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
NAME AND AFFILIATION, PLEASE.
MARTHA GUERRERO, REPRESENTING
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, ALSO ECHO THE
CONCERNS THAT, QUDAH RAISED,
OPPOSE THE CUTS TO SINGLE
ALLOCATION AND, IT AFFECTS
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
FAMILIES. ALSO, THE REFERENCE TO
THE LÀ PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING
PROGRAM BEING SLOW TO START
SINCE IT WAS FUNDED IN 2019.
JUST A QUICK UPDATE. IT WASN'T
FUNDED UNTIL 2023 2024, SO WE
WERE STARTING AND THEN IT GOT
PULLED BACK. AND WE ALSO OPPOSED
THE CUTS TO FERS, SILP, THE CSU,
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES AND
FAMILY STABILIZATION, EXPANDED
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT,
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INTENSIVE
CASE MANAGEMENT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, NAME AND
AFFILIATION, PLEASE. YEAH MR.
CHAIRMAN, CARL LONDON, ON BEHALF
OF THE ALLIANCE SUPPORTING
PEOPLE WITH ID, AND I WANT TO
THANK DOCTOR ARAMBULA FOR BEING
A WALKING ADVERTISEMENT FOR WHY
WE SHOULD GET RID OF TERM LIMITS
AND BEING THE INSTITUTIONAL
MEMORY ON, DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES. ALSO, YOU AND MR. LEE
FOR GRABBING THE TORCH THAT HE'S
GOING TO LEAVE BEHIND
EVENTUALLY, WHEN HE DOES LEAVE
HERE, I WANT TO START BY JUST
POINTING OUT THAT IN THE
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES SPACE, A
QUICK REMINDER TO EVERYBODY.
THIS COMMUNITY HAS ALREADY
GIVEN. WE'VE GIVEN FOR 20 YEARS,
FROM 1998 TO 2018, AND EVEN THIS
LAST YEAR, THE YEAR WE'RE IN
RIGHT NOW, WE ARE GOING TO
REVERT BACK OVER $1 BILLION TO
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR
UNUSED SERVICES. THE MAIN REASON
THAT WE'RE NOT USING THOSE
DOLLARS IS BECAUSE THE RATES ARE
SO LOW, WE CAN'T FIND THE STAFF
TO SERVE PEOPLE. SO WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THIS SYSTEM AND WANT TO
PULL ANOTHER BILLION DOLLARS OFF
THE TABLE, WE'VE ALREADY GIVEN
FIND A WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT
MONEY AND MOVE IT FORWARD FROM
THE CURRENT YEAR TO NEXT YEAR
AND SAVE US THAT PAIN. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NAME AFFILIATION PLEASE, CHILD
CARE IS ESSENTIAL FOR THRIVING
FAMILIES AND JUSTICE AND
COMMUNITIES. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS MARIAM, STAFF ATTORNEY
WITH THE CHILD CARE LAW CENTER.
FAMILIES NEED AFFORDABLE CHILD
CARE NOW. WE URGE THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE TO REJECT THE CUTS AND
PAUSE AT THE 81,000 CHILD CARE
SPACES AND CUTS TO THE SPACES IN
THE EMERGENCY CHILD CARE BRIDGE
PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES
OF COLOR SHOULD NOT HAVE TO
CARRY THE BURDEN OF THESE CUTS,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE RAINY
DAY FUNDS AND OTHER AVAILABLE
SOURCES OF REVENUE. WE URGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO IMPLEMENT AND
FUND THE ALTERNATIVE MENTAL
ANALOGY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
PAYING PROVIDERS BASED ON THE
FULL COST OF BRIDGING CARE IS A
CRITICAL STEP TO WRITING
HISTORICAL WRONGS AS WELL, WE
ALSO URGE LEGISLATURA TO REJECT
ANY CUTS TO THE CALARTS PROGRAM.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NAME AND AFFILIATION. PLEASE
HELLO, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS ANDREW AVILA WITH EARLY
EDGE, CALIFORNIA HERE TO ALIGN
OURSELVES WITH THE BUDGET
COALITION'S ASKS. WE REALLY
WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE COMMITMENT
TO THE 200 SPACES, 200,000
SPACES THAT WAS PROMISED TO US
IN THE 2122 BUDGET. WE'D LOVE
FOR THERE TO BE A COMMITMENT
FROM THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION ON THE ADOPTION
OF THE ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY.
WE'D ALSO URGE CONSIDERATION OF
THE REVERSION ACCOUNT AND TO
AWARD THE 27,000 CTR SPACES THAT
PROVIDERS HAVE BEEN AWARDED IN
DECEMBER. IN OUR ACCOUNTING FOR.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. NAME AND
AFFILIATION. PLEASE CHRIS STONER
MERTZ, CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES,
REPRESENTING 165 NONPROFIT,
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
SERVING YOUTH AND THEIR
FAMILIES. I'M REALLY HEARTENED
BY THE COMMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE
AND OTHERS, YOU CAN TELL WHERE
YOUR HEARTS ARE. OUR MOST
VULNERABLE CHILDREN, YOUTH AND
FAMILIES, MANY OF THEM PEOPLE OF
COLOR, FOSTER YOUTH, ETC. WILL
BE HURT BY THIS BUDGET WITHOUT
YOUR HELP. WE ASK THAT YOU
REJECT CUTS TO CALWORKS,
PARTICULARLY HOME VISITING, THE
EMERGENCY CHILD CARE BRIDGE
FUNDING AND TO FERS AS WELL AS
OTHER CRITICAL CHILD WELFARE
CUTS. WE ALSO URGE YOU TO
SUPPORT ASSEMBLY MEMBER CHAVO'S
REQUEST FOR BRIDGE FUNDING FOR
FOSTER FAMILY AGENCIES. THESE
ARE ESSENTIAL PROGRAMS THAT WILL
HAVE TO CUT SOCIAL WORK STAFF
WITHOUT YOUR HELP. THANKS. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. NAME AND
AFFILIATION PLEASE. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. COURTNEY
JENSEN, ON BEHALF OF THE LOW
INCOME INVESTMENT FUND, WHICH
SUPPORTS PROVIDERS THROUGHOUT
THE STATE WITH THEIR FACILITIES
FUNDING NEEDS. WE ARE MEMBERS OF
THE COALITION AND ALIGN OUR
SUPPORT WITH THE COALITION'S
PRIORITIES. WE ALSO WANT TO
REEMPHASIZE, MR. CHAIR, YOUR
COMMENTS AND THOSE MADE BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ALVAREZ ABOUT
THE FACILITIES GRANTS BEING
TAXED. UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE
HEARING FROM MORE AND MORE
PROVIDERS WHO HAVE WHO ARE
RECEIVING HUGE TAX BILLS AS A
RESULT OF THEIR GRANTS. THE
INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT PROGRAM IS
OVERSUBSCRIBED AND HAS HAD A
HUGE AMOUNT OF INTEREST FROM
PROVIDERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
AND WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED IF
WE DO NOT FIX THIS TAX ISSUE.
PROJECTS FOR REPAIR AND
RENOVATION AND ALSO MAJOR
CONSTRUCTION TO EXPAND THE
ABILITY TO SERVE MORE CHILDREN
WILL STOP. WE THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, FOR YOUR COMMENT ABOUT
ASKING FOR TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
AND STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
LEGISLATURE AND ADMINISTRATION
ADOPTING TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
TO FIX THIS ISSUE MOVING FORWARD
SO GRANTS ARE NOT TAXED. THANK
YOU. NAME AND AFFILIATION
PLEASE. I, JUSTIN GARRETT WITH
THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES. I'M HERE TO
REITERATE OUR STRONG OPPOSITION
TO THE PROPOSED HUMAN SERVICES
CUTS. I REALLY WANT TO THANK THE
CHAIR AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR
YOUR DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF THE
IMPACTS THAT THESE CUTS WOULD
HAVE FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS
ISSUE AND WORKING TO PRESERVE
THIS FUNDING AND FOR
UNDERSTANDING THE NEGATIVE
IMPACTS IT WOULD HAVE TO COUNTY
WORKERS, TO COUNTIES ABILITY TO
ENROLL INDIVIDUALS AND SERVICES
INTO THE LEVEL OF SERVICE
PROVIDED TO FAMILIES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NAME AND
AFFILIATION, PLEASE. KIM
ROTHCHILD, CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES FOR IHS, WE'RE HERE
TO ASK TO MAINTAIN A PORTION OF
THE FUNDING FOR THE BACKUP
PROVIDER SYSTEM, AS WE BELIEVE
THIS IS A COST SAVINGS PROGRAM.
THANK YOU. I SEE YOU'RE NODDING.
YES. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE
WORKING WITH STAFF AS WELL AS
CDS AND LEO TO COME BACK WITH AN
APPROPRIATE COST ESTIMATE TO
ALIGN WITH UTILIZATION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NAME
AND AFFILIATION, PLEASE. REBECCA
GONZALEZ, WESTERN CENTER ON LAW
AND POVERTY. WE CONTINUE TO BE
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CUTS TO
CALWORKS. INDIVIDUALLY. THEY'RE
AWFUL. TAKING COLLECTIVELY IT'S
DEVASTATING. THAT INCLUDES
FAMILY STABILIZATION PROGRAMS,
SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT, MENTAL
HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE
SERVICES PROGRAM, HOME VISITING,
DRAINING OF THE SAFETY NET. BUT
WE DO LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO
REIMAGINE CALWORKS AND MAKE IT
LESS PUNITIVE AND MORE FAMILY
CENTERED, ALSO, THE IHSS CUTS
FOR UNDOCUMENTED CALIFORNIANS.
WE AGREE WITH SOME OF THE
COMMENTS HERE. HOW SHORTSIGHTED
THOSE CUTS ARE AND HOW THEY WILL
REALLY THEY'RE NOT ONLY
HEARTLESS, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO
RESULT IN MORE COSTS. ALSO
CONCERN. AND WITH THE CUT TO
FERS AND FAMILY AND NUTRITION
PROGRAMS, THANK YOU. CHRISTINE
SMITH, HEALTH ACCESS CALIFORNIA
WE URGE THE LEGISLATURE TO PUSH
BACK ON PROPOSED CUTS THAT
UNFAIRLY TARGET IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING THE
PROPOSAL TO CUT IN-HOME
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR PEOPLE
WHO ARE UNDOCUMENTED. THE
PROPOSAL SPECIFICALLY UNDERMINES
THE HEALTH FOR ALL PROGRAM BY
SPECIFICALLY ROLLING BACK
EXISTING SERVICES FOR THIS
POPULATION, REMOVAL OF THIS
FUNDING COULD RESULT IN FURTHER
IMPOVERISHMENT AND INCREASE
STATE SPENDING ON SPENDING ON
EXPENSIVE NURSING HOME CARE, AND
ALSO FURTHERMORE USING MEDI-CAL
FOR NURSING HOME CARE AS OPPOSED
TO IHSS OR HOME CARE, EXPOSES
PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDOCUMENTED TO
PUBLIC CHARGE. THANK YOU, BEFORE
YOU START, I JUST WANT TO
EMPHASIZE TO EVERYONE,
PARTICULARLY IF YOU HAVE
SCRIPTS, I SUGGEST YOU DITCH
THEM, BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING THE
WRAP UP SIGNAL, WHICH MEANS WE
WILL HAVE TO RECESS, VOTE ON
ANOTHER COUPLE OF HUNDRED OF
BILLS, AND THEN COME BACK. OKAY,
NOW Y'ALL KNOW I'M DOWN, BUT ARE
YOU DOWN? OKAY SO AGAIN, PLEASE,
IF YOU HAVE A SCRIPT, GET RID OF
IT. JUST TELL US WHAT THE
PROGRAM IS AND WE KNOW YOU DON'T
WANT US TO CUT IT. OKAY GOT IT.
DEAL, JOSH GAGA, ON BEHALF OF
THE URBAN COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA
AND THE RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVE, A CALIFORNIA
OPPOSED TO THE CALWORKS, CUTS,
750 PLUS MILLION DOLLARS ARE
GOING TO GET THE PROGRAM. ALSO,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY LIVING NETWORK OPPOSED
TO THE DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
RATE DELAYS, EXPANDING WAITLISTS
, AND DELAYING MUCH NEEDED, PAY
INCREASES. LASTLY, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
DIAPER BANKS, JUST HIGHLIGHTING
THE END OF THE DIAPER BANK
NETWORK IN THE CURRENT FISCAL
YEAR. NEED TO FIND A SOLUTION TO
EXTEND THIS PROGRAM AS
CHAMPIONED BY SEVERAL MEMBERS OF
THE ASSEMBLY? THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, KATHY
MOSSBERG, ON BEHALF OF THE AREA
AGENCIES ON AGING, AS WELL AS
MEALS ON WHEELS, OPPOSED TO THE
SENIOR NUTRITION CUT. HAPPY TO
TALK MORE ABOUT WHAT THE
DEPARTMENT SAID AT ANOTHER TIME,
ON BEHALF OF FIRST FIVE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
OPPOSED TO WANT TO ALIGN
OURSELVES WITH OUR COLLEAGUES
AND ALL THEIR COMMENTS OPPOSED
TO THE CAL WORKS HOME VISITING
CUT. AND FINALLY, ON BEHALF OF
NOURISH OPPOSED TO THE DELAY IN
THE CFF EXPANSION AS WELL AS THE
PILOT PROGRAM. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. HELLO, HARRISON LINDER HERE
ON BEHALF OF LEADINGAGE,
CALIFORNIA. WE'RE HERE OPPOSED
TO CUTS TO THE SENIOR NUTRITION
PROGRAM AS WELL AS HOME SAFE AND
THE HOUSING AND DISABILITY
ADVOCACY PROGRAM, WHICH ARE TWO
OF THE STATE'S ONLY HOMELESSNESS
PROGRAMS THAT PARTICULARLY
TARGET OLDER ADULTS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT OKAY,
I'M GONNA JUST MAKE QUICK MY
NAME IS LUCIA. I'M FROM PARENT
VOICES. THIS IS MATTHEW. HE'S
FROM PARENT VOICES. ALSO AND I
JUST WANT TO SAY GET USED TO
SEEING THIS FACE. IF WE DON'T
FREE UP SOME OF THOSE CHILD CARE
SPACES AND, MY SISTER BRIANNA,
WHO'S NOW WITH US TODAY,
ACTUALLY USED THE FAMILY
STABILIZATION PROGRAM. AND
BECAUSE OF IT, SHE'S NOT
HOMELESS. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. REALLY APPRECIATE
IT. NEXT UP. HELLO. MY NAME IS
ANGELA. I'M FROM CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY. I AM A PARENT, WE DON'T
WANT YOU TO CUT THE CALWORKS
PROGRAM, AND WE NEED WHAT IS OUT
HERE. CHILD CARE. YOU GOT IT,
GIRL. HI, I'M VALERIE MOORE FROM
PARENT VOICES, AND I JUST WANT
TO REJECT THE BUDGET CUTS FOR
CHILD CARE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
HI. MY NAME IS ANDREA, AND? AND
WE JUST NEED CHILDCARE AND
CALWORKS FOR US PARENTS. AND WE
JUST NEED IT. YES, MA'AM. THANK
YOU. OKAY I'M JUST GONNA PUT
THIS ONE OVER HERE, BUT, MY NAME
IS AMARANTO SILVA. I'M A
COMMUNITY ORGANIZER WITH PARENT
VOICES CALIFORNIA. WE ARE ALSO
MEMBERS OF THE EC COALITION. I'M
HERE TO URGE YOU TO LIMON TO
FIGHT FOR A FINAL BUDGET THAT
INCLUDES FUNDING FOR THE 20,000
CHILDCARE SLOTS AND TO KEEP THE
PROMISE FOR THE 80,000 TOTAL
PENDING FOR FAMILIES, ALSO TO
COMMIT TO THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR
THE ACTUAL COST OF CARE FOR
PROVIDERS TO REJECT THE CUTS TO
CALWORKS, WE KNOW THAT THE
GOVERNOR PROPOSAL PROPOSED TO
LEAVE THE 19 BILLION FOR THE
RAINY DAY FUND. BUT GUESS WHAT?
FOR OUR PARENTS, IT IS RAINING
ALREADY, SO WE NEED TO TAKE THAT
MONEY OUT OF THAT FUND AND THEN
HELP OUR PARENTS. ALSO, I'M
BRINGING LETTERS FROM OUR
PARENTS IN SUPPORT TO PROTECT
CHILD CARE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. NEXT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. DOCTOR
ARAMBULA BARRY JARDINI WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY SERVICES
ASSOCIATION, OPPOSED TO THE
PROVIDER RATE DELAYS IN THE
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES SYSTEM.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT. GOOD
AFTERNOON. HEIDI KAISER
REPRESENTING CHILD ACTION. WE'D
LIKE TO ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH
THE EQ COALITION, AND PLEASE
REJECT ANY PROPOSED CUTS TO THE
FOSTER CARE BRIDGE PROGRAM.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT
HELLO, CHAIR AND MEMBERS, MY
NAME IS JUSTINA ERPELDING. I'M
HERE ON BEHALF OF EVERY CHILD
CALIFORNIA S VOICES, AND WE'RE
MEMBERS OF THE S COALITION. WE
ALIGN OUR COMMENTS ALSO WITH THE
S COALITION WITH STRONG
OPPOSITION TO THE CUTS IN CHILD
CARE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. NEXT HELLO, NINA BOOTH,
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF EVERY
CHILD CALIFORNIA, A MEMBER OF
THE S COALITION. AND SO WANT TO
STRONGLY ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH
THAT. WE OPPOSE ALL OF THE CHILD
CARE CUTS. AND I WILL SAY,
ESPECIALLY THE K¾T R SPACES, WE
ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE THOSE PROGRAMS
HAVE ALREADY STARTED SPENDING
MONEY. I GOT AN EMAIL THIS
MORNING THAT IN SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY, THEY WILL NO LONGER BE
ABLE TO SERVE 495 INFANTS AND
TODDLERS. BECAUSE OF THIS CUT.
THEY WERE READY TO START OPENING
THIS PROGRAM AS SOON AS TOMORROW
. SO THERE ARE REAL, REAL, REAL
CONSEQUENCES TO DELAYING THOSE
FUNDS, SO PLEASE DO NOT DO SO.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. NEXT UP, EMERALD
EVANS HERE WITH GRACE AND CHILD
POVERTY CALIFORNIA, WE URGE YOU
TO REJECT THE DEVASTATING CUTS
TO CALWORKS FOSTER YOUTH, CHILD
CARE CALFRESH, AND ACROSS THE
ENTIRE SAFETY NET THAT WILL
CAUSE IRREVERSIBLE HARM TO A
GENERATION OF CHILDREN. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT
UP, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
JACKSON AND DOCTOR ARAMBULA.
GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN. I SAW YOU
LAST WEEKEND, TONY ANDERSON FROM
THE ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL
CENTER AGENCIES. WHERE'D YOU SEE
HIM? AT BAKERSFIELD, HE WAS VERY
INSPIRING. TONY ANDERSON,
ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL CENTER
AGENCIES, AND WE ARE, OF COURSE,
IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE
DELAY FOR OUR COMMUNITY
PROVIDERS. WE WANT OUR OUR
FAMILIES AND PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES TO GET THEIR LIVES
BACK. PLEASE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. NEXT UP, THANK YOU,
VANESSA KAHINA. ON BEHALF OF
VISION Y COMPROMISO, IN
OPPOSITION TO THE IHSS CUTS,
PARTICULARLY FOR UNDOCUMENTED
CALIFORNIANS AND THE CFAP DELAY
ON BEHALF OF THE NURSE FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP, ONE OF THE CAL
WORKS HOME VISITING PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS IN OPPOSITION TO THE
CALWORKS CUTS, ESPECIALLY THE
HOME VISITING PROGRAM, CUT ON
BEHALF OF CAL PACE. THE CAL PACE
PLANS IN OPPOSITION TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGING SENIOR
NUTRITION CUT MORE INFORMATION
HAS BEEN GIVEN TO STAFF. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT
UP. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DOCTOR
ARAMBULA KATHY MCDONALD FOR
ALAMEDA COUNTY, IN OPPOSITION TO
THE CALWORKS CHILD WELFARE,
AGING AND ADULT SERVICES, ADULT
PROTECTION, CHILD CARE, HOUSING,
AS WELL AS THE DELAY ON THE
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY RATES.
ALL OF THOSE CUTS WILL BE
DEVASTATING LOCALLY AND WE STAND
READY TO HELP EXPLAIN THOSE
IMPACTS AND HELP YOU LOOK FOR
ALTERNATIVES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. NEXT UP, GOOD
AFTERNOON, NINA HARWELL WITH
AARP CALIFORNIA. AND OUR 3.2
MILLION MEMBERS. WE ASK THE
COMMITTEE TO REJECT THESE
FOLLOWING CUTS. THE CUTS TO
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HOME
SAFE AND SENIOR NUTRITION
PROGRAMS. THESE CUTS TAKE US
AWAY FROM THE STATED GOAL OF A
CALIFORNIA FOR ALL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS.
DON KOEPKE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION CENTER IN
CALIFORNIA FAMILY RESOURCE
ASSOCIATION, WITH OPPOSITION
RELATED TO THE SILP CUTS AS WELL
AS THE FIRST CUTS. AND THEN MOST
IMPORTANTLY, CAL WORKS HOME
VISITING SACRAMENTO BASED FAMILY
RESOURCE CENTER, IN PARTICULAR
SERVING, ACROSS THE COUNTY OVER
300 CHILDREN AND FAMILIES WITH
TREMENDOUS RESULTS OF KEEPING
THOSE FAMILIES OUT OF CHILD
WELFARE. SO WE THINK IT'S A GOOD
PROGRAM AND A RETURN ON
INVESTMENT IS TREMENDOUS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT
UP, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
YOSHIRA MENDES AND I'M HERE TO
SUPPORT THE CSU LEGAL SERVICES
PROGRAM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT UP GOOD AFTERNOON. CREWS
I'M A SENIOR LEGAL ASSISTANT
WITH IMMIGRANTS LEGAL DEFENSE,
I'M. I'M HERE TO. I'M HERE TO
OPPOSE THE CSU LEGAL LEGAL
SERVICES, BUDGET CUT. THIS
PROGRAM HAS BEEN ESSENTIAL FOR A
LOT OF STUDENTS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEFORE I
USED TO BE A COLLEGE ADVISOR,
AND I DEFINITELY HAVE SEEN HOW
MUCH THIS HAS BENEFITED NOT ONLY
THE STUDENTS, BUT THEIR
FAMILIES. SO I DEFINITELY URGE
YOU TO SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.
NEXT UP. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS MAIVA MARK. I'M THE
VP OF ADVOCACY AND POLICY FOR
KYOTANGO AND WE ARE A CHILDCARE
AND PRESCHOOL PROVIDER IN THE
BAY AREA SERVING 5000 PLUS
FAMILIES AND WE WERE GOING TO,
ADD ANOTHER THOUSAND DUE TO THE
CHILDCARE EXPANSION GRANT THAT
WE WERE AWARDED. BUT YESTERDAY
WE RECEIVED THE LETTER STATING
THAT THIS AWARD MAY BE
RESCINDED. AND SO WE ARE HERE TO
OPPOSE THIS, THESE CUTS. AND WE
ARE ALSO IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE
S¼ BUDGET COALITION. ASK AND AS
WELL AS, BLACK CALIFORNIANS FOR
ICHI AND ENCOURAGING THAT WE
HAVE INVESTMENTS FOR BLACK
CHILDREN, BLACK FAMILIES AND
BLACK PROVIDERS. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. NEXT UP, GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARIA
KILLEEN. I'M THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
COLLABORATIVE FOR LONG TERM
SERVICES AND SUPPORTS, I JUST
WANT TO START OFF WITH SOME
APPRECIATION. I THINK THE
CONVERSATION TODAY WAS REALLY
MEANINGFUL, AND IT'S CLEAR THAT
WE HAVE STRONG PARTNERS IN THE
LEGISLATURE WHEN IT COMES TO
PROTECTING AGAINST CUTS FOR
OLDER ADULTS, PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES AND ALL OTHER
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT WE OPPOSE THE
LITANY OF CUTS THAT IMPACT OLDER
, OLDER ADULTS AND PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES FROM IHSS TO APS TO
HOUSING, WE BELIEVE THAT ANY
EROSION OF THE CURRENT LONG TERM
SERVICES AND SUPPORT SYSTEM WILL
HAVE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT IN THE
FUTURE, AND THOSE CUTS ARE VERY
SHORTSIGHTED. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, FOLKS. FOLKS, WE GOT TO GO
QUICKER. I'M ABOUT TO I'M ABOUT
TO GO TO RECESS. I'M TELLING YOU
NOW, OKAY, GOOD. GOOD AFTERNOON,
DAN OCKENFELS WITH THE,
CALIFORNIA FOUNDATION FOR
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTERS. AND
WE'LL JUST ECHO EVERYONE ELSE'S
COMMENTS ON THOSE CUTS TO THOSE
VITAL PROGRAMS FOR PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. NEXT UP. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR. CHAIR. MALIK BYNUM WITH USPI
LOCAL 3930 AND CHILD CARE
PROVIDERS UNITED, REPRESENTING
HOME CARE PROVIDERS AND CHILD
CARE PROVIDERS ACROSS 45
COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA.
UPLIFTING COALITION'S COMMENTS,
ESPECIALLY AS IT PERTAINS TO THE
CHILD CARE SLOTS AND AS IT
PERTAINS TO HOME CARE. I WANT TO
REJECT THE IHSS CUTS AS IT'S
GOING TO BE EQUALLY DETRIMENTAL
TO CONSUMERS AND WORKERS. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT UP, TIFFANY
NGUYEN WITH SEIU CALIFORNIA
REJECT ALL THE CUTS TO THE
SAFETY NET PROGRAMS, AS WELL AS
IHSS AND THE DELAYS TO THE IDD
COMMUNITY, AND JUST LIFT UP THAT
WITH ALL THE CUTS MADE. THOSE
ARE WORKERS JOBS THAT WILL BE
LOST AS WELL. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP,
JULIA TERRY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CHILD CARE RESOURCE CENTER, THE
CHILDCARE ALLIANCE OF LOS
ANGELES AND CHILDREN NOW, AND WE
ARE A PART OF THE COALITION AND
ALIGN OURSELVES FULLY WITH EVERY
PARTNER THAT HAS GONE BEFORE US,
REJECTING THE CUTS TO CHILD CARE
SLOTS, THEIR EMERGENCY FOSTER
CARE BRIDGE PROGRAM, AND AS WELL
ENCOURAGING THE TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE TO PROPERLY IMPLEMENT
RATE REFORM. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. NEXT UP. HI, KEISHA AND
ZOEY BLACK CALIFORNIANS UNITED
FOR EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION IN
FULL ALIGNMENT WITH THE
COALITION HERE TO LIFT UP OUR
YOUNGEST BLACK CHILDREN, BLACK
FAMILIES, AND THE BLACK CHILD
CARE WORKFORCE AND THE
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT THAT ALL
OF THESE CUTS WOULD HAVE ON
BLACK CALIFORNIANS. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. NEXT UP, HI, MONICA
KIRKLAND, STATE POLICY DIRECTOR
FOR SENIOR SERVICES COALITION OF
ALAMEDA COUNTY, WE THANK YOU FOR
YOUR SENTIMENTS. AND WE DO SEE
THAT WE HAVE PARTNERS IN THIS,
WE JUST REJECT ALL THE CUTS FOR
HOME SAFE AGE. DEPP IHSS AND THE
OLDER AMERICAN ACT MODERNIZATION
THAT YOU GUYS WILL CONTINUE TO
URGE THAT WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES
AS WELL. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU. NEXT UP, RANDY
MARTIN, ON BEHALF OF AVIANA
HEALTH CARE, WE'RE ALWAYS
ALREADY HAVING CHALLENGES
PROVIDING SERVICES TO PEOPLE
WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES.
IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE NEXT
YEAR WITH 30,000 NEW CLIENTS
EXPECTED TO ENTER THE SYSTEM.
PLEASE OPPOSE THE DELAY IN THE
DDS RATE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. NEXT UP, GOOD
AFTERNOON, KIM LEWIS,
REPRESENTING CHILDREN, NOW URGE
YOU TO REJECT THE NEARLY 240
MILLION IN CUTS TO CHILD WELFARE
, ESPECIALLY FIRS AND THE
EMERGENCY CHILD CARE BRIDGE, AND
ALSO URGE YOU TO REJECT THE CUT
FOR THE HOME VISITING PROGRAM
AND THE TRIGGER ON THE PERMANENT
FOSTER CARE RATES PROPOSAL AND
ASPIRANT WOULD ECHO ALL OF THAT
AND SAY THAT THEY ALSO WOULD
SUPPORT THE FOSTER CARE BRIDGE
FUNDING. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
NEXT UP, THANK YOU, DYLAN
ELLIOTT ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTIES OF HUMBOLDT, KERN,
TULARE, SONOMA AND SOLANO AND
MARIN, OPPOSED TO THE CALWORKS
CUT, SPECIFICALLY FAMILY
STABILIZATION AT URGE A
REJECTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. NEXT UP, CLIFTON
WILSON, ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTIES OF FRESNO, HUMBOLDT,
SONOMA, MERCED, STANISLAUS, KERN
AND TULARE, ALL IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF PROVIDING BRIDGE
FUNDING FOR THE IHSS PROGRAM.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT UP.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBER, ROSANNA CARRASCO ELLIOTT
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE EARLY CARE
AND EDUCATION CONSORTIUM, IN
OPPOSITION TO THE CHILD CARE
CUTS AND ALIGN MY COMMENTS WITH
THE OTHERS FROM THE COALITION.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT UP,
HAZEL GUTIERREZ WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FOOD
BANKS AND WE ASK RESPECTFULLY TO
REJECT CUTS TO CALFRESH MINIMUM
NUTRITION PILOT CALWORKS WINS NO
DELAYS TO THE CALIFORNIA FOOD
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS AND SUPPORT
INVESTMENTS FOR SUMMER ET
IMPLEMENTATION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP, GOOD
AFTERNOON, RONALD COLMAN.
VANESSA HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND HEALTH
NETWORK, KHN, URGING THE
LEGISLATURE TO REJECT THE
PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE IHSS FOR
THE UNDOCUMENTED AND ALSO THE
DISCRIMINATORY PROPOSAL TO DELAY
SERVICES IN CFAP TO THE
EXPANSION TO UNDOCUMENTED
SENIORS. WE'RE ALSO VERY
DISAPPOINTED AND URGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO REJECT ANY
ELIMINATION OR CUTS TO THE
IMMIGRANT INEQUITY PROGRAMS AND
LEGAL SERVICES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP, I
ALIGNED MY COMMENTS WITH MY
COLLEAGUE BEFORE ME, ELENI WOLF
FROM IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE. I
URGE YOU TO REJECT THE CUTS TO
CSU LEGAL SERVICES. THIS HAS
SERVED OVER 20,000 OF THE MOST
HARD TO REACH CALIFORNIANS TO
DATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT
UP, HI, I'M BARBARA PINTO ON
BEHALF OF THE CSU IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT, AND I AM
IN SUPPORT OF RESTORING THE FULL
FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM, CUTTING
THE CSU FUNDING TO ALIGN WITH
THE CSU WITH THE UC FUNDING IS
NOT JUSTIFIABLE AT ALL IN ANY
WAY. AND GIVEN THE POPULATION OF
BOTH SYSTEMS, THE SERVICES
PROVIDED, THE REGION SERVED, AND
JUST THE PURE NUMBER OF
INDIVIDUALS WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO
SERVE IS VASTLY DIFFERENT, THIS
CUT WOULD CREATE A SEVERE
INEQUITY AND THE FUNDING NEEDS
TO BE INCREASED TO CORRECT THAT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NEXT UP, JULIE MITCHELL, LEGAL
DIRECTOR AT CARSON REPRESENTING
LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO
HERE TO SUPPORT THE CSU
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES
PROJECT. IF THE CUT STANDS, IT'S
LESS THAN 78,000 PER CAMPUS.
THAT'S NOT EVEN ONE STAFF. AND
THERE IS NO OTHER FUNDING SOURCE
THAT WE CAN USE. EVERYTHING'S
TAPPED OUT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NEXT UP. JEAN YAMASAKI,
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE. I JUST
URGE YOU TO NOT BALANCE THE
BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF
UNDOCUMENTED CSU STUDENTS.
CALIFORNIA HAS INVESTED SO MUCH
MONEY IN THE CSU SYSTEM, AND IN
THOSE STUDENTS. AND THESE
STUDENTS WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN
CALIFORNIA ECONOMY IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES. SO PLEASE ALLOW
THEM TO DO THAT WHEN THEY
GRADUATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NEXT UP. HI, LAUREN FLORES. I'M
A SUPERVISING ATTORNEY, WORK
WITH THE CSU LEGAL PROJECT. WORK
WITH CAL STATE FULLERTON, CAL
STATE LONG BEACH, CAL STATE
DOMINGUEZ HILLS, JUST WANT TO
URGE YOU TO REJECT THE BUDGET
CUTS TO THE CSU IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT UP. HELLO,
MY NAME IS YADIRA AND I'M A
STAFF ATTORNEY AT GARRISON. I'M
PART OF THE CSU LEGAL SERVICES
TEAM AND ME, ALONG WITH TWO
OTHER FOLKS. SERVICE PRIMARILY
CSU LÀ. WE ROUTINELY HAVE A TWO
MONTH WAIT FOR OUR SERVICES
BECAUSE THE NEED IS SO HIGH AND
I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT
OUR SERVICES HELP PROTECT
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY FROM
FRAUD. AS THE COMMITTEE IS
ALREADY WELL AWARE, THE
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY IS OFTEN
TARGETED. AND JUST LAST WEEK, I
MET WITH A STUDENT THAT HAS
ALREADY SPENT NEARLY $10,000 ON
A CASE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
STRAIGHTFORWARD. SO WE URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO, TO FULLY FUND THE
CSU LEGAL IMMIGRATION SERVICES
PROGRAM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
FOLKS. I AM GOING TO RECESS IN
FOUR MINUTES. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS ANA RAYGOZA. I'M A STAFF
ATTORNEY FOR THE CSU IMMIGRATION
SERVICE PROGRAM. I URGE THIS
COMMITTEE TO FULLY FUND THE CSU
IMMIGRATION SERVICE. WE SERVE
CAMPUSES FROM CSU CHANNEL ISLAND
TO CSU SAN BERNARDINO. THE SAN
BERNARDINO. THE SAN BERNARDINO
IS A CAMPUS WITH HIGH DEMAND AND
NO SERVICE PROVIDER. THROUGH
THIS PROJECT, COMMUNITY MEMBERS
IN SAN BERNARDINO AND THE INLAND
OKAY AND THE INLAND EMPIRE HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO GET ACCESS TO
TRUSTED SERVICES. SO I URGE YOU,
ONCE MORE, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
OKAY GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
JENNIFER LARA MORENO, ASSISTANT.
AS A CASTILLO ALUMNI, I'M
DISHEARTENED BY THE COMMITTEE'S
CONSIDERATION NOT PRIORITIZING
THE DECISION TO FULLY FUND THE
CSU LEGAL IMMIGRATION SERVICES.
NOW THAT I WORK FOR THE CARSON
COLLEGE LEGAL SERVICES SERVICING
THE CSU, STUDENTS, I DO SEE THE
NEED OF STUDENTS AND THEIR
PARENTS TO GET THESE TYPE OF
SERVICES TO NOT BECOME VICTIMS
OF THE LOTTERY AND I ALSO URGE
THE COMMITTEE TO FULLY FUND THE
CSU LEGAL IMMIGRATION SERVICES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AGAIN,
FOLKS, DITCH YOUR DITCH YOUR
SCRIPTS. JUST TELL ME THE
PROGRAM AND WE KNOW YOU DON'T
WANT IT TO BE CUT. MARISSA
GARCIA PEREZ WITH THE JEWISH
FAMILY SERVICE OF SAN DIEGO
SUPPORTING THE SAN DIEGO REGION,
WE REJECT THE CUTS TO THE CSU
LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT UP, CAROL
STEVENSON, JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE
SAN DIEGO, PART OF THE CSU LEGAL
SERVICES TEAM, AND URGE YOU TO
FULLY FUND THE IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICES. THANK YOU. JACKIE
GONZALEZ, IMMIGRANT DEFENSE
ADVOCATES HERE FOR TPS. CHIRP,
CSU. IT'S $33 MILLION. THE STATE
NEEDS TO FIND THE MONEY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP,
CHRISTOPHER SANCHEZ, ECHOING THE
COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES
REPRESENTING THE IMMIGRANT AND
LEGAL SERVICE IMMIGRANT RESOURCE
LEGAL SERVICE CENTER, THE
IMMIGRANT JUSTICE RESOURCE
CENTER, AND GODDESS AND TO
PRIORITIZE US IN THE BUDGET.
THANK YOU. NEXT UP, EVELYN
MATHIS CENTER FOR CAREGIVER
ADVANCEMENT HERE TO SUPPORT THE
IHSS CAREER PATHWAYS PROGRAM.
IT'S THE ONLY TRAINING THAT SOME
IHSS CAREGIVERS GET RECEIVING,
INCLUDING CPR. SO THIS IS REALLY
LIFE SAVING PROGRAM. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT UP GOOD
AFTERNOON, CYNTHIA GÓMEZ ON
BEHALF OF THE COALITION FOR
HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS, CHIRLA,
IN PARTICULAR IN OPPOSITION TO
THE CUTS TO THE IHSS PROGRAM AND
THE CSU LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT UP,
SARAH BACHUS WITH CHILDREN NOW
OPPOSING THE CAL WORKS HOME
VISITING CUTS. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. NEXT UP, JAMIE ZAMORA WITH
VALLEY ALIGN. OUR COMMENTS WITH
THE COALITION AND OPPOSING ANY
CUTS TO THE CALWORKS PROGRAMS AS
WELL AS CALWORKS ON VISITING.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT UP,
RAQUEL MORALES, ON BEHALF OF
TRUST WEST, OPPOSING CUTS TO
CHILD CARE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. NEXT UP, I WANT TO THANK
EVERYONE. I WANT TO THANK THE
ADMINISTRATION, THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE. LAO, MY DEAR
COLLEAGUE, DOCTOR ARAMBULA. GOOD
TO SEE YOU IN THE HOUSE. ALSO,
MR. TING, WE ARE ADJOURNED. AND
I WANT TO THANK STAFF. AND THE
SERGEANTS? AND REPUBLICAN STAFF.
AND MY MAMA.