Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Human Services, Wednesday, February 25, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Human Services California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Thank you, mister chair and members. It's great to be here with you this afternoon. As you just heard, my name is Jennifer Troia, and I am honored to serve as the director of the California Department of Social Services. Thank you for this opportunity also to discuss these very major changes to CalFresh that are implemented as a result of HR one. CalFresh currently serves over 5,300,000 individuals and 3,100,000 households with an average monthly benefit of $333.
The federal changes under HR one will have very major impacts on these households. We estimate 2.3 to $4,300,000,000 in annual federal funding reductions, and the governor's budget assumes that as many as 578,000 people could lose benefits as a result of h r one. In the face of these challenges, CDSS remains committed to ensuring that as many eligible Californians as possible retain access to CalFresh. Our approach centers on minimizing harm by maximizing allowable exemptions, including using data to help people maintain benefits whenever possible, reducing administrative burdens, and connecting people to qualifying work and community engagement activities when required. I wanna briefly highlight how we're approaching implementation of the time limit and work and community engagement requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents.
You'll hear us because we love our acronyms in social services, frequently referred to this group of individuals as ABODS. HR one keeps the basic structure of federal time limit rules that preexisted, but significantly expands who is subject to them and reduces who qualifies for an exemption. As a result, more Californians will be subject to the time limit unless they're exempt or meet the community and work engagement requirements. To mitigate harm and support consistent statewide implementation, we are doing a number of things. First, we're maximizing exemptions by using data already available in our systems whenever possible and exploring additional opportunities for automation.
We're our implementation timelines also reflect the time that is required to align policy, update the Kelsaus automation system, and train county eligibility staff. Federal rules require exemption screenings before we apply the time limits to individuals' cases. For existing recipients, this occurs at their next recertification, meaning that most screenings will naturally take place over a twelve month period to help manage the workload. We've also launched a statewide partner engagement series, county office hours, and expanded policy training to support clear and consistent implementation. To further support counties and clients, CDSS is developing an ABOD outreach toolkit with client tested messaging aligned
Speaker 2
the Department of Health Care Services and a county resource toolkit to support consistent exemption screening when the screening is needed and easier connections to qualifying activities. We're also preparing to help individuals meet requirements where needed by expanding CalFresh employment and training programs and providing technical assistance to any counties that are not currently offering these employment and training programs, exploring comparable work fair programs outside of employment and training, and working with our Cal HHS and the labor and workforce development agency to strengthen the cross system workforce connections. Even with these efforts, it's critical to acknowledge again that we expect that many Californians may lose access to CalFresh. They would face increased food insecurity and greater difficulty meeting basic needs with corresponding impacts on their health and well-being. I will now turn it to deputy director Fernandez Garcia to further address questions about the anticipated impacts of HR one that were outlined in your agenda.
Speaker 5
Good afternoon. Again, my name is Alexis Fernandez Garcia, and I serve as the deputy director of the family engagement and empowerment division. In response to your questions related to the number of individuals we expect to be impacted by implementation of the time limit, California currently has about 2,700,000 adults age 18 to 64 getting CalFresh, and those are the new federal parameters, for age that define a person categorized as an ABOD. Based on what we already know from our data, about one point eight million CalFresh recipients between that age range or about two thirds are already expected to be exempt. For example, roughly 880,000 of these adults live in a household with a child under 14 and therefore already qualify for an exemption.
This leaves about 950,000 adults or about 17% of the total caseload whose exemption status is unknown at this time or who may be subject to the time limit, including 600,000 people newly subject to the time limit because of h r one. Based on initial budget estimates, we anticipate that of these 950,000 individuals, about 110,000 will be determined exempt based on new information collected by county eligibility workers at that exemption screening. About 179,000 will be subject to the time limit but are anticipated to be meeting the work requirement, And that leaves about 665,000 ABODs who may lose CalFresh at full implementation. We also know that certain groups are more likely to be affected by the time limit than others. So preliminary indicators suggest that men are more likely than women to be subject to the time limit.
Adults aged 55 to 64 who make up just ten percent of the overall Calfresh caseload represent about thirty one percent of those projected to be subject to the time limit. And that is also the age range of the expanded, parameters under HR one, coincidentally. People who are categorically who were categorically exempt before HR one, including individuals experiencing homelessness, former foster youth, and veterans, are now far more likely to lose CalFresh access. Before h r one, multiple categories of lawfully present noncitizens, primarily humanitarian immigrants, were also eligible for CalFresh. And under h r one, another major policy change, in that legislation, Eligibility has been narrowed to a much smaller set of categories, including lawful permanent residents who meet the five year waiting period, Cuban Haitian entrants, and individuals under the compact of free associations immigration category.
As a result, we estimate that 72,000 noncitizens, will also lose eligibility once HR one is fully implemented. In closing, we thank you for engaging on this important important discussion and for your partnership as we work together.
Speaker 6
Good afternoon. My name is Ted Simone. I'm the executive director of United Public Employees UPE. We're an independent union representing county and court employees in a variety of counties in Northern California and in the Central Valley. For today, I'm here to speak for the CalFresh workers whom we represent in Sacramento County and Merced County who determine eligibility and administer CalFresh benefits.
As you all are aware, CalFresh program is targeted for cuts coupled with new additional requirements for program participants due to h r one. Without adequate funding, this could lead to thousands of families just in Sacramento County born without food or even enough food to feed their children, their families themselves. Coupled with an increased and housing insecurity, which will lead to more of these same children and families becoming homeless, is a recipe that will lead to malnutrition, and it will lead to death. In Sacramento County alone, there are as many as 360,000 residents that receive CalFresh benefits. 70,000 are at risk of losing benefits under HR one's new requirements.
Our CalFresh workers are the essential workers in the CalFresh program. We are the ones meeting with families applying for CalFresh. These same workers are trying wholeheartedly to connect these families so that they can obtain the much needed resources for their basic survival. We are already underfunded, which creates a bottleneck in the entire system. As you explore funding options, keep in mind that there are two critical components that go into the funding of the CalFresh program, the program benefits and the workforce.
Any cuts to the program will result in cuts to the workforce without the workers who will be issuing the resources. Without enough workers, issuing benefits will inevitably lead to further delays in families getting access to benefits. I wanna walk you through the real life process. Someone seeking CalFresh benefits must go through an intake meeting. To apply, they can do this by phone, online, mail, or going to a welfare bureau.
Currently, it is difficult to even to get a worker as the wait time can be hours and even days. If you are fortunate to receive services that same day, you will leave with some benefit of maybe at least $50 depending on if you qualify ex for expedited services, which are considered emergency services. $50. If it's a renewal of benefits, it can possibly take weeks because they are simply not enough workers. Also, it's extremely common that and this is going to get worse due to the new the new HR one requirements.
Individuals often show up to intake meetings without all the proper documents. As a result, intake meeting often stops and is rescheduled. A lot can happen in those days and weeks. These delays will be attributed to children and families going hungry. One can assume that good people being put into desperate situations will take desperate measures to feed their families.
Therefore, we pray that you allocate the 20,000,000 in general funds towards CalFresh that was authorized in the 2025 budget act, which will go unused without action in the current year. Provide that county match waiver to enable counties to continue to operate CalFresh. Appropriate additional funds to enable counties to implement h o one rules for ABOB. Anything less will essentially result in tens of thousands of people just in Sacramento County just in Sacramento County losing their benefits. Not having adequate funding for CalFresh programs will result in workforce reductions of essential workers, and delays will continue as the CalFresh recipients cannot get processed and enrolled in a reasonable and timely fashion.
And this is just scraping the surface. There's over 500,500 Sackville County residents that are enrolled in Medicaid.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Next, we'll have CWDA. Ted, can you take a switch with Tiffany with SEIU to make some room for her to make her testimony at appropriate time?
Speaker 7
CWDA? Good afternoon. Carlos Marqueszamba, the County Welfare Directors Association. A key metric for measuring famine by international authorities is when at least one in five households experiences an extreme lack of food. Put another way, if all 5,500,000 CalFresh recipients were a country unto themselves, A million of them experiencing extreme lack of food would constitute a metric for famine by the international community.
Thankfully, five and a half million existing CalFresh recipients and the nearly 1,000,000 adults who are at greatest risk of hunger are not a country unto themselves. They are part of a resource rich state that produces 25% of the nation's food and is governed by state lawmakers who can still mitigate federally provoked hunger. Beginning on June 1, at least a million Calfresh recipients must rely on a well trained, adequately funded, and fully staffed county eligibility workforce. On behalf of California's 58 counties, I am here to sound the alarm that counties are not adequately funded nor are we adequately staffed to act as a backstop to unmitigated hunger for at least a million adults at greatest risk of losing food assistance. Counties need immediate access to the 20,000,000 general fund set aside in the 2025 budget act and an ongoing investment starting with a 103,000,000 in budget year to bolster the eligibility workforce.
Our colleagues at the Department of Social Services have planned exhaustively for how to mitigate harm in the face of HR one implementation, issuing county guidance in December that positions counties and empowers workers to serve as an antidote to otherwise massive losses in benefits. The only problem, the state's plan is not funded. For example, in addition to screening for exemptions at intake and recertification per the guidance, requires our, workers are required to evaluate a client for exemptions during several triggering events. When someone discloses a change in circumstance, when someone voluntarily discloses that they may no longer be eligible for an exemption, if someone experiences a drop in hours, and before someone is, at risk of being discontinued. After accounting for time needed for robust screening as well as supporting clients through compliance, CWDA estimates that for some clients, to an additional four hours per year will be required to implement the department's guidance and HR one responsibly, effectively doubling our existing workload for some cases.
When you factor in the vulnerable profile of impacted adults based on the national research, including that they are more likely to leave the program quickly because they believe that they are no longer eligible, have fewer links to the safety net outside of SNAP, have minimal information and minimal eligibility system data, and are also extremely vulnerable to chronic homelessness. As CDSS has estimated, about twenty five percent of impacted ABODS are experiencing homelessness. And finally, they generally have mental and physical limitations that do not meet the strict standards of federal disability assistance, the need for worker driven, roles in building trust and engaging frequently and discerningly to prevent losses and benefits only becomes clearer. In closing, we urge the administration to release the 20,000,000 set aside to support h r 1 county implementation, the legislature to invest an additional 103,000,000 in general fund, button general fund and budget year to implement h r one consistent with the state's guidance.
Speaker 8
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, chair Jackson and members of the committee. I'm doctor Marla Stewart, the director of the employment human services department.
Speaker 8
I don't know why that happened. Let me start over. Good afternoon, chair Jackson and committee members. I'm doctor Marla Stewart, the director of the employ Contra Costa County employment and human services department. We are the first responders to poverty, and we do not have what we need to implement HR one CalFresh work requirements that begin in sixty four days.
In Contra Costa, we currently support a 106,296 individuals who rely on CalFresh, children, seniors, college students, former foster youth, parents, veterans, individuals with disabilities, individuals who are without a home, and employed individuals working in low wage intermittent jobs. Our monthly CalFresh issuance is $21,000,000, which is expended locally in 30 cities and communities at over 700 grocery stores and which supports the salaries of over 3,300 grocery employees. Eligibility work is holistic case management. It includes sending and receiving vital mail, scheduling and conducting interviews, making and receiving phone calls, collecting and documenting information, determining new and continued eligibility, processing household changes, researching regulations, answering client questions, transferring cases, solving client problems, identifying and responding to fraud, connecting clients to other community resources, and now assessing compliance with work requirements. And because people only apply for CalFresh when they are in a crisis, our eligibility workers are trained to do this work from a trauma informed perspective.
Due to federal regulations, applying for and renewing CalFresh is complex and difficult. The application is 29 pages long. From applicants, we require documents to validate identity, Social Security number, citizenship status, residency income, and expenses. Applications and renewals require an or require an interview, which averages one hour for English speaking customers and two hours for all other languages. Following the interview, it takes one to two hours for the eligibility worker to finalize the application and to make a determination of approve or deny.
We touch CalFresh cases a minimum of twice a year for a total annual eligibility worker time per case ranging from two to four hours. Adding the new ABOD screening work essentially doubles the time needed for each case, which is currently unfunded. To prepare, we are now providing 555 eligibility workers and their supervisors with fifteen hours of training, a total of 5,200,000 in salary and benefits, which far exceeds the 177,000 that we did receive in current year for training. For those individuals who are not eligible for an exemption and are not working, we do not have an adequately funded employment program. We do have CalFresh employment and training, CFET, for which we are currently funded about $2,000 per customer.
But under h r one for CalFresh, we need a program that is more similar to CalWORKs supportive services for which we get about 5,700.0 per customer. We very much appreciate the department's harm reduction approach to this dire situation and the addition of some training funding this year and the many forums that they are holding to collaboratively plan. And we need new funding for training, for ABOT screening, and to bolster our employment supports. Eligibility workers are the first responders to poverty. They are the gateway to CalFresh participation.
If eligibility work is not adequately funded, we will not hold the line, and CalFresh recipients will needlessly lose their benefits.
Speaker 10
Mister chair and members, Tiffany White with SEIU California representing over 750,000 hardworking Californians. Today, I have the honor to speak to you on behalf of our roughly 14,000 eligibility workers across the state. On the surface, it may seem like all they do is help people apply for benefits, but they do so much more. Our eligibility workers help keep families together. They help people maintain their dignity, and in many cases, they help individuals stay alive.
Every day, individuals sit across from our workers in moments of crisis, scared, overwhelmed, and unsure of what comes next. It is the eligibility worker who helps them navigate the process during some of the toughest times in their lives. Consider just one example. Our workers come face to face with families where parents have been detained by ICE or deported, leaving children suddenly in need of care. Often, a relative steps in, but adding another child to a household budget is beyond the reach of many working, class families.
Some of those relatives are seniors without health insurance themselves. Our eligibility workers step in to screen them for Medi Cal and CalFresh. They stabilize the household. They make sure food is on the table. They make sure medical care is accessible.
And that is just one small snapshot of what an eligibility may a worker may encounter on any given day. Now comes HR one and its devastating implications for individuals and families. Our workers will tell you firsthand that communities are scared. This isn't about luxuries. It's about the basic necessities people need to literally survive.
Chris, an eligibility worker from Ventura County will tell you it's not just communities who are scare who are afraid. The workforce is too. Many eligibility workers administer multiple safety net programs. While we may focus today on CalFresh, the reality is they must also master Medi Cal work requirements, CalFresh ABOG time limits, and the complex intersections between programs. These are not minor adjustments.
These are sweeping changes with real consequences. Alex from San Diego County with eleven years of service will tell you that every program change means hours of checking and double checking eligibility. It means making sure no eligible person falls through the cracks. It means ensuring compliance while upholding our mission to keep as many eligible individuals enrolled as possible. That takes time, that takes training, and that takes staff.
On top of learning new work requirements and time limits, eligibility workers will be onboarding new individuals and families entering the programs. And let's be honest, workers are already stretched thin, doing everything that they can to meet the needs of their communities. So what is California supposed to do? We ask you simply to do the right thing. Do everything in your power to ensure that our communities are supported and protected at a time when federal actions are intentionally causing harm.
Make an up upfront investment in the workforce of a 103 for CalFresh so counties can hire additional staff and retain the experienced workers we already have. We are already seeing some counties explore layoffs due to HR one. I cannot underscore this enough. This is the moment to strengthen our workforce, not shrink it. We have seen what investments can accomplish during the ACA expansion when we invested in eligibility staff.
We successfully enrolled the expansion population and ensured coverage reached those who needed it most. That success did not happen by accident. It happened because we prepared the workforce. We are asking that the $20,000,000 secured in last year's budget begin to begin implementation of ABO time limits be released to counties now so training and hiring can begin immediately. June 1 is right around the corner.
Eligibility workers are the first responders to poverty. They show up every day for families in crisis. They are dedicated. They are committed. They believe in public service.
But if they are not prepared, if they are not trained, staffed, and supported, then individuals and families will suffer. Lives will be affected. Children will go without food. Seniors will lose medical care. Working families will fall deeper into hardship.
If we truly care about mitigating harm to families, we must support the workforce that stands between stability and crisis. Invest in them, prepare them, stand with them. Because when strengthen when we strengthen eligibility workers, we strengthen California families. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Thank you, mister chair. Ryan Woolsey with the legislative analyst office. I'll highlight, three, important items that we think should be kept in mind to support implementation of HR one. The first is, as described by, the administration, it's going to be really important to focus on ways to use existing data and automate processes to limit the administrative burden. There's been a lot of research into the impacts of requirements like those in HR one, and they can result in people who are eligible falling off of, enrollment.
So focusing on how to, verify eligibility with minimal impact to the enrollees is gonna be a critical thing. Next, as you've heard, counties are really on the front line of implementing HR one, and so it's gonna be important to think about how best to support counties. We're continuing to assess the, funding proposed in the governor's budget for administration, and, we will relay our comments on that to the committee when we when we have them. We also would recommend that the legislature, take steps to ensure that h r one implementation is done in a way that's consistent with your priorities, and that can be done by ensuring that key decisions are enacted in statute as well as adopting other mechanisms to have reporting back on on other items as implementation rolls forward, especially in cases where there's federal govern guidance that's forthcoming. I'll lastly note that your agenda includes a request for assistance from our office on drafting some trailer bill language related to the the population of legally present noncitizens that are going to be excluded from CalFresh, and, just wanted to know we're happy to help with that, and we'll work with your staff after the hearing.
Speaker 12
Noel Falkaji, Department of Finance. Speaking to the provisional language that came up of the 20,000,000, wanted to just provide some background. So point in time at the budget act, we did include this flexibility given that the, federal guidance was not yet released. I hear the the urgency that has been brought up in the comments. The Department of Finance is currently in receipt of a proposal from DSS, so we're working closely on, analyzing that and hope to have an update for the legislature soon, but available for other questions as well.
Speaker 1
Members of the committee, any questions, comments? Assembly member Arons, and then Samim, and then doctor Sharp Collins. Thank
Speaker 13
you, mister chair. I wanna thank everyone for all their testimony today, and really trying to highlight the the seriousness of the issue of implementing, these draconian HR one cuts, what they're doing in real time, and and how pressing it is for us to do everything we can, in this process to help as many people as possible because of the federal government's actions. My question is regarding, on behalf of my colleague, assembly member Lee, his bill a b three two two nine. And I know my understanding is there was a report that was due last July that is, delayed in being published. And I'm wondering if, you can just speak for the record, why the delay of the, a b three two two nine report regarding the CalFresh fruit and vegetable pilot program.
Why is it delayed, and and where is it in the process?
Speaker 2
If I may, I'll I'll I'll take that one and say, I do think we have an item related to the fruit and veggie pilot later in the hearing, so we're happy to get into greater details at that time. But also wanna convey that I believe the report was transmitted to the legislature yesterday. Yep.
Speaker 2
I'm gonna defer to my colleague, Ryan Gillette, although I think he is also the
Speaker 13
person who will testify in the later panels. And homework. I have to give a reason why and I get a a letter grade docked.
Speaker 15
Hi. Brian Gillette, research automation and data division, department of social services. So, yes, we have been working on the report. We wanted to make sure that we got all the details right so that we could properly convey the impact before we make, any recommendations.
Speaker 13
Okay. Usually, when it's delayed by that much, we and for transparency, just for the legislature but for the public, we would like to have, better communication as to why there there delays because it was due last July. So I do hope that we can work with with you all in your office moving forward about being more transparent, not just for the legislature, but for the public when critical programs and you heard how dire these programs are and the cuts that are being faced that, if we can work a little bit more effectively as to if they're gonna be several months of delay, there should be given a very clear and public reason why moving forward.
Speaker 16
Yeah. Thank you guys, so much for being here today to continue to further the conversation, about CalFresh. And so one of the questions I know that each of you spoke about some of the likely downstream, effects. So looking at the impacts to poor children, homelessness, and some of the negative health, outcomes. But I'm I'm looking at the mental health aspect of it and wondering if we can elaborate a little bit more and give us some more data.
I'm wondering if there is a dataset that can help us estimate, if welfare payments, you know, really looking at SNAP benefits have an impact on on the suicidal attempts. So looking at the mental health aspect of people who are receiving or therefore no longer receiving or things have been reduced, Can anyone talk about the likely, effects of of this? So I'm diving into the mental health side of it.
Speaker 2
We'd be happy to get back to you. I I will say we did review research, related to a variety of, impacts on the positive side in terms of providing additional cash supports and other concrete supports do improve health, which would include mental health, well-being, long term success of children. There are a variety of factors, and the research unfortunately does indicate, in the reverse, that the the reverse is also true, that the removal of those concrete supports does have a deleterious effect on those same measures, which specifically get down into behavioral health, don't have off the top of my head. But if there are particular studies we identified that called out suicidality or anything else, we'd be happy to follow-up.
Speaker 16
Thank you. Because I also wanted to make sure that we talk about this at our next, CalFresh hearing that that will be coming up as well. So I'm just kinda queuing you up for that too. But, also, going into a question about the the the the the implementations as pertains to the agriculture sector, but also the grocers in regards to the HR cuts. So just wanted to get a little bit more of a of clarification on on what it means for your employees for the ag community, but also for the grocers considering that the HR cuts are coming?
Speaker 8
Thank you. I can take that question. I appreciate that. When SNAP was potentially halted in November, we did a lot of work with our grocery community, and it helped us to really better understand our grocery community in Contra Costa County. In In Contra Costa County alone, our annual benefit is $21,000,000.
I mean, the monthly the monthly issuance is $21,000,000. We have data that can show us where that is being spent, and it's being spent at over 700 county grocery stores. And the $21,000,000 is equivalent to the salary of 3,300 employees, grocery employees. So there's a real multiplier effect with CalFresh. And if people fall off CalFresh, it's devastating for them and their families, and the downside is homelessness for sure.
But if the if there's less money in the community for the for to purchase groceries, there will also be a very negative impact on grocery stores who may have to do layoffs.
Speaker 1
Just a couple of, questions here. You know, as I've been looking at some of the equally as important to CalFresh is in many of our social safety net programs, we have embedded anti homelessness programs to ensure they are not falling into homelessness. It's very hard to call something a safety net when people constantly fall into homelessness while they're receiving these programs. Why don't we have a homelessness program in CalFresh?
Speaker 5
let me first start by confirming that we know that there's an overlap between food insecurity and homelessness. Mhmm. For example, in a UCSF statewide survey, we found that seventy percent of people experiencing homelessness in California did receive CalFresh as a critical support. At the same time, we also know that CalFresh serves a very broad set of individuals and families with a range of incomes. As we noted earlier, over 5,300,000 individuals.
As a result, receipt of CalFresh in and of itself does not serve as a sufficient eligibility criteria to help us narrow in on those individuals that might be as high at greatest risk. So if we were to consider something like this for a state investment, we'd have to be in discussion around what the appropriate eligibility criteria would be. And one other kind of important factor is that we would want to consider the interplay between the receipt of any type of state funded benefit for something like housing support or housing services with the eligibility criteria which are federal. We wouldn't want the the state funded benefit to unintentionally reduce someone's CalFresh benefit because the feds consider it income. So I I think just happy to continue these discussions and provide technical assistance to the committee, dive into this topic with you all in in more detail so we can talk about the different considerations.
Speaker 1
I I definitely wanna con to continue down this road. I would love to see what possible program could look like. I mean, obviously, not with all the details that, you know, all the stuff that, you know, we would all be overwhelmed with. But I I would really like to see us looking at that program. I think that's one of the final programs that I think, particularly given the percentage of CalFresh recipients who are homeless.
Mhmm.
Speaker 1
how do we, you know, how how do we take a look at that and and whether we can act on that now. At least we have something in the future to say, hey. When there's opportunities available, this is a type of program we can look at. This is possibly how much it would cost, you know, those type of things. And so I would like for us to I would like to receive that information, hopefully, may hopefully, before the May revise, if possible.
Again, sketch. I'm not talking about a whole you know, I don't want you to try to hire five employees and, you know, and all that kind of stuff to try to do it. Let's I just wanna make sure we we can take a look at that. Secondly, I refuse to lose ground on the number of people we've been able to
Speaker 1
refuse to. And even though the federal government has deemed some people worthy and not worthy, I believe that California still deems them worthy whether they stay on CalFresh or not. Therefore, if we had an opportunity to still get them benefits outside of the federal SNAP program, how much would that cost?
Speaker 5
So yes. If if you're just looking at what we anticipate being lost during this initial phase Correct.
Speaker 1
So I'm talking about the 665,000 people Yeah. Who we project to lose benefits. Mhmm. How much would that cost the state to be able to still provide them with assistance?
Speaker 5
So the value of the benefits lost minus the three months of federal benefits that they're eligible for initially is in the $2,500,000,000 range, and that would just be a rough cut back of the envelope providing everyone the equivalent benefit.
Speaker 1
Yep. That's fair. Thank you for that. And thank you for knowing that. Have mercy.
That's impressive.
Speaker 1
Okay. CDSS. Okay. Alright. We've already noticed before that the legislature and the administration came with with an agreement on the $20,000,000 to go to counties.
And I do understand that the process is taking place a process is taking place, and now it lands with Department of Finance. Department of Finance, when do you believe that you will come up with your decision? What timeline are you looking at? Because it looks like as we get closer and closer to June deadline, we're getting really I really believe in setting up people for success, and I'm sure we wanna set up our counties for success. And the longer we wait, the longer it takes us, the less and less we're setting up our counties for success.
What is your timeline on getting an answer to CDSS and then to our counties?
Speaker 4
Oh, I think it's on. I'll just be be a little closer. Lutas Morales, Department of Finance. We sort of absolutely understand the interest. As my colleague sort of noted within the administration, we're really sort of thinking through the federal guidance and the the resources that are needed at the county levels to ensure that we come forward with the proposal that reflect sort of our, you know, vision for the dollar.
So we're doing that analysis at this point. Hearing you on the urgency, and we'll follow-up as soon as we can.
Speaker 1
Okay. What I'm gonna really wanna do and we're gonna follow-up, we we really want a timeline. Like, we we can't we need more information. I understand you're going through a process, but I would like to get get have you respond back in in writing to this committee on a timeline in which you believe you will be completing that process. Okay?
Speaker 2
Thank you. Maybe maybe as a new member, could get some clarity for the Department of Finance. I'm I'm trying to catch up. So we voted on this last year. It has to be implemented by July.
Speaker 2
June 1. Okay. So we're in almost March. To the chair's point, I don't understand. Is is that a feasible timeline being that we're so delayed?
And is this something you're actually gonna be able to to make happen based on the time we have left?
Speaker 4
So the June 1 date is sort of fixed, and DSS may sort of speak more to that. The pro the provisional language specifically related to $20,000,000 that was sort of identified during the sort of close out of the governor's budget of the budget last year. Yeah. At that point in time, we knew HR one was law, but we were waiting for federal guidance to really understand what resources might be needed to sort of move forward with implementation of the legislation.
Speaker 4
So federal guidance is now still received, and so we're doing the analysis to inform how to use those dollars.
Speaker 2
I'm sorry. Is that I'm I'm just trying to track. Is that yes. You were waiting for federal guidance, and now you're reviewing that, and you're in analysis, and now we're looking at a timeline.
Speaker 4
That's correct. At the time the the language the budget was adopted, it was because we did not have federal guidance at that point in time.
Speaker 1
Also, cow sauce. One of the things that we want to do is obviously, we've learned a lesson on the importance of ensuring that our social safety net is less reliant, more resilient from the federal government. And we have been in quite a bind that we've relied so much on the federal government and its systems to implement our work that sometimes we're now being held hostage because now we can't use it for certain populations that we deem important to be able to serve. When we think about Kalsas, if if the legislature is able to provide policy direction and statute and this June's budget to utilize the CFAP expansion to provide food benefits to any individual who who may be ineligible for h r one or their immigrant status, but but we still in California would like to serve them. Could we use SAWS for that if you have appropriate, policy direction to do so?
Speaker 2
So, I'll just, if if I may, lay a little bit of foundation for committee members who may not be as familiar with the circumstances as you are, doctor Jackson. We implement right now a California food assistance program, which is a state only funded food assistance program. It specifically focuses on serving individuals who lost eligibility for federal SNAP as a result of 1996 welfare welfare reforms. The federal government at the time created an option for states that chose to continue to serve that population with state only funding to piggyback on the federal systems, the automation systems, the banking system, the federal treasury to continue to operate benefits for that population. We took them up on that option.
That is the current automation that we have for our operation of the CFAP program. So last year, as we were talking about the populations who may lose benefits under h r one, including the 74,000 approximately noncitizens whose, immigration status under HR one will mean that they lose benefits, under SNAP. You asked us at the time if we could then serve them in the CFAP program, and our answer then, which is the same answer now, is that the federal structure will not allow that. The only people we can serve through the federal automation systems are those who lost benefits in 1996 and who are part of that federal option. Because the legislature and governor agreed to expand the CFAP program to an additional population, which is, 55 plus individuals regardless of immigration status subject to the appropriation of funds for the that purpose, We have been working to develop automation to be independent of the federal structure in our CSAT program.
Once we are at the point where we have automated an independent structure and we can provide our CFAP benefits without relying on the federal government in that way, it would be up to the state as a matter of state law and the availability of funding to determine who we wanted to serve in that program, but the current limitations related to the automation and banking systems would not apply any longer. We have been working on that automation targeted to the date that is, the expansion of the CFAP population. If you recall, that was a budget solution in recent years to delay that. It is currently on track for 10/01/2027.
Speaker 2
And we are working on that automation with that date in mind, we're on track for that automation. It is not, however, in place yet. So if your question was as of June year, could we use that new automation? It is not yet ready.
Speaker 1
However, if we wanted to capture the 665,000 people who will be losing benefits on the federal side and we wanted to now include them in CFAP, would you need legislative direction and approval to do so?
Speaker 2
We cannot include them in CFAP for the reasons that I was just describing. We could potentially, and we have think
Speaker 2
We cannot include anyone in CFAP who was not the population that was targeted in the 1996, welfare reform who lost benefits in CFAP proper. That said, we did have some conversations last year about whether there would be other options for delivering benefits to individuals in the meantime. So for example, in times of disaster, we have sometimes provided, like, prepaid gift cards to certain populations of individuals. We have provided other kinds of, cash benefits. So there may be other ways to deliver benefits to a targeted population of people until that automation is available, but the CFAP program itself can't be expanded until we are independent at in CFAP, until we are independent of the federal system.
Speaker 5
I wanna add just one little detail that even on 10/01/2027, if we were to want to add additional populations, we would need to understand the eligibility criteria to provide an estimate on what timeline that automation could be completed or at what cost because the automation that's on track is very specific to Californians age 55 and older.
Speaker 1
But still make the October 1 deadline, what type by when do you need statutory changes to be able to do that to still Yeah. Make that deadline?
Speaker 5
So I think we would have to take it back and understand more about the eligibility criteria. And the reason we'd have to take it back is because we do have many automation projects in the queue leading up to October 2027 that are federally required related to things like HR one, the Medi Cal work requirements, and it's just hard to assess what bandwidth the system would have to do that ahead of October 1.
Speaker 1
Totally understand. But it is possible to go outside of those 55 and over. Am I correct? Utilizing CalSALs?
Speaker 1
Okay. With the right That was my question. And yeah. Right. That was my question.
Mhmm. How much do you think that would cost to be able to, make additional Yeah. Tweaks to, the program to go beyond the 55 and over population?
Speaker 5
We so we would have to submit an estimate with our Cal sauce partners, and we would require some eligibility parameters to understand what type of functionality is being requested.
Speaker 1
So, obviously, we wanna capture before we start with a new population, we should be trying to capture a population that will be losing benefits. So you already have a snapshot of the 665,000 people who are gonna lose benefits. 600. Mhmm. So when you look at eligibility requirements, you already know what that population is.
In most cases, I know it's a lot of people in different circumstances. Right? So given that, obviously, there is I mean, it's not something we have to dig too deeply into. Am I correct in that or am I just
Speaker 5
So, I think we could do some general kind of cost estimates with those numbers. I'll give you one example of a a criteria we would need to know is, for example, would the expectation be that we move those individuals back to federal CalFresh benefits if they become eligible? That type of transition between programs would require more complex automation than if they were to stay on the state program indefinitely. So it it you know, we'd need to have some sense of the parameters.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you for that. On your disaster CalFresh trailer bill proposal
Speaker 1
What are the risk or potential adverse consequences of this proposal for any region or population they may that may experience a disaster?
Speaker 5
So let me just pull up my here's the notes here. Yes. So, just for for other folks on the committee, we are proposing to add, an additional assessment, to determine if disaster CalFresh is the appropriate response when a declaration of disaster is granted with individual assistance. Currently, state law does require that we, apply to the federal government to administer that program every time there is such a declaration. And what we've seen in the last few years as this has been in state law is that disaster CalFresh is the appropriate response in many cases.
But because of the way that the federal government has been granting these declarations, There have been occasions where, for example, a county has been included in that declaration where there has been very limited impact on individual households, and so we've run the program in those counties with very few applicants, sometimes as little as none. And there are many resources that go into preparing to operate a disaster CalFresh program. There are many federal requirements that go with that. Other examples, include the declaration coming very late, and so the feds have denied our applications because it's months after the disaster itself. And so what we're asking to do is build an assessment phase in as we're developing the plan with the counties including included in the disaster declaration so we can determine if that is the appropriate response, primarily that individual, people have been impacted and that businesses as well have been impacted.
I understand the concern that that could create some delays, but we're committed to completing the assessment in the same timeline that we currently develop the plan, which takes us about two weeks from the declaration. And we wouldn't need to exclude all counties. We could include some counties in a disaster declaration and not others if it's not appropriate in that county.
Speaker 1
Okay. So you're saying that you don't anticipate any delays longer than the current process that's already in place.
Speaker 5
Right. And and for counties where we don't operate disaster CalFresh, CalFresh itself is still available and sometimes is the more appropriate response as it provides long term benefits
Speaker 1
Mhmm. LA, what are your thoughts on that? Do you believe that we should, do you believe that additional, screening, can still be done in appropriate amount of time that will not be longer than the current process?
Speaker 11
We haven't identified any concerns with the proposal. It does seem to make sense to have a more tailored option to, make this as efficient as possible. We we don't have any concerns with the with the timelines.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you very much on that. Elio, a question for you. You you make an AI argument for helping to streamline and make processes more efficient in terms of helping counties to make sure that we're working on the eligibility. Do you see any unintended consequences of automating some of these things where possibly, you know,
Speaker 1
more human interface may catch certain things or ask certain questions that may actually find someone eligible than not eligible that maybe AI wouldn't be able to capture?
Speaker 11
So to clarify, I don't think we have any specific suggestions with respect to the role of AI. That's clearly a dynamic and developing topic, I think it's it's not clear at all.
Speaker 1
We're we're we're not asking Silicon Valley right now. Thank you very much. Stop.
Speaker 11
Go on. So I the the main area where we think this is gonna be useful as described by the department is in leveraging information that already exists so that we don't have to ask enrollees to always provide that information. Because to the extent you've got additional demands on a household to provide information, you're gonna have people fall through the cracks. So, really, the focus is on trying to use what what is available. I think we would anticipate that there's gonna continue to be some need for, workers to review that information and take appropriate action based on that, but there is a lot of data out there that can inform these determinations and hopefully, for many people, we can avoid having to ask for that verification.
Speaker 8
Doctor Jackson, if I could add something here. I am the vice chair of the CalSAUG joint powers agreement, so kind of on on behalf of CalSAUG here. We and as a county director, we are never replace our human eligibility workers with AI, but I do think there are opportunities for AI to assist us. Through CALSAS, we have pilot tested now over the last year a call summary. We pilot tested that in one county where the worker is speaking to the client.
After the call, the worker has to document the call. We've piloted an AI created call summary which the worker then reviews and signs off on, and what we found is that it's highly accurate and it reduces the worker's documentation time from about ten minutes to about one minute. So I think that's one good example that would be helpful to our workers.
Speaker 1
Similar to Zoom's dictation function now where you can Mhmm. Yeah. Okay. Whatever. I will not ask Silicon Valley.
No. So just a couple of requests from this committee that I think is gonna be important as we go through this journey together. First, I think it's important that counties and the administration really come up with a the appropriate numbers and workload assumptions so that we can try to get to a general fund amount for the budget year. What is it gonna take to do this correctly? Right?
And it doesn't seem as though we're all on the same page yet. And so I would like my request is really for counties and the administration to get together to really come up with a a definitive number that we can all live with, Okay? In case the legislature, wants to continue to, invest in lowering case loads, right, making sure that we are have the workforce necessary to ensure that we are providing the most optimal service to clients to prevent them from losing their benefits. Okay? Is that something you all are, willing to do or have already done already?
Maybe I'm just behind the ball.
Speaker 2
I will say, and and I hope that, the counties would agree that we do work very closely together on a very regular basis and have these conversations related to our assumptions as well as the proposals that they've put on the table and the assumptions behind their proposals and that we will absolutely continue those dialogues.
Speaker 1
When do you all anticipate being able to get this committee some of these, assumptions? Because, obviously, we're definitely gonna need it by the May revise.
Speaker 2
I would defer to the Department of Finance if there's anything to add in terms of whether there's a proposal from the administration typically would come in the May revise if there were any updates, but I don't know if they wanna add anything.
Speaker 4
No. That that's correct. We would work through the May revision to assess, resource needs. And if there's sort of anything there, we would see it presented at that point in time.
Speaker 1
Yeah. I think my problem with that is that, usually, what comes from the administration may revise may or may not include what the conversations and feedback has been from the counties. And so I would like to have this conversation happen so that we can really make sure that we have a full understanding of what we believe is going to take really to make this happen. I think we when when every time we've done this before, I believe there was a time where we actually were able to come up with a number when there was an agreement that counties were underfunded in a certain category and we actually came up with a number. We didn't agree for every single digit in that number, but we had a ballpark.
Right? And so I I think that, it's going to be incumbent upon us to be able to to do the same. CWDA, you have any input?
Speaker 7
Sure. Thank you, doctor Jackson, for the opportunity. I I think we we would welcome an opportunity before May revision to come to one mind on the workload, and general fund assumptions with the administration. I will say we've had over five, maybe six conversations successively since the release of the governor's budget, with, director Troia's team, both program and fiscal. And, we just most recently furnished them with additional detail about the backup that informs our assumptions, which were, informed by a survey that we conducted.
But I think the crux of the issue is that we have a disagreement about whether the existing CalFresh methodology, which captures some portion of the pre HR one traditional ABOD work Mhmm. Is going to be sufficient for implementing a transformationally different set of policies under post h r one ABOD time limit and work requirements. That is ultimately at the heart of our disagreement today. We think we need an additional four hours in order to make sure that we can conduct the robust screening and support clients through compliance for those who don't qualify for an exemption. We think that the survey is absolutely outmoded and not the accurate instrument to use to determine what the real workload impacts are gonna be post HR one because those impacts could not have been conceived when that survey was administered, well before the pandemic.
So we look forward to continuing to refine, you know, that sort of, I think, disagreement and and hope to, you know, come up with with a consensus proposal. But I do think we would need your leadership in order for that to happen because I imagine that's not a traditional part of the budget process.
Speaker 1
Yeah. It's it's a part of the Jackson process, though. And so do you believe that this disagreement can be resolved, or do is there still room to make room, or are we all dug in here? I think that's my question.
Speaker 2
We have said several times in in hearings and in those conversations that we are absolutely open to continuing to refine our estimates, which were in the January budget and working toward the May revision process. So if if your question is, is there openness to the dialogue and to better understanding the assumptions that are appropriate? Absolutely. There's openness there. What the end result of that will be, it's a little hard to predict in advance.
Speaker 1
But Oh, yeah. No. Absolutely. I I I definitely get that. So what what this committee is gonna do is we're gonna check-in to see in a week or two or so whether you all have met to really keep going at this.
And if you have not, then I I anticipate a meeting request with me. And Well, and if I I don't even like me, so I'm not sure how you all will like that. Go ahead.
Speaker 7
I would just suggest that, it be a a multilateral conversation that includes the Department of Finance because it's it's great news, by the way, that DSS has submitted a proposal to release a 20,000,000 general fund that was enacted under 2025 budget act to the Department of Finance. I still have questions, we all do, about how the federal guidance, that was received in October would somehow change the contours of the assumptions that would inform the release of that 20,000,000 because the state's guidance, which was released in December, contemplates and is consistent with that federal guidance. And so, I don't imagine the Department of Finance would come up with an independent analysis of the federal, you know, the federal guidance that would differ from your colleagues in the Department of Social Services, to somehow change the assumptions that we don't need the the funding. The guidance that CDSS has issued in December is a harm reduction document. It is a harm reduction document.
It is a a very sort of, I think, informative, piece of guidance for our counties, and they're embracing the guidance because there are a number of opportunities to actually place people in a safe harbor from losing benefits and having these work requirements applied. That plan, that harm reduction document is not being funded, and that's the main point that we're trying to emphasize today.
Speaker 1
Okay. Department of Finance, do you agree to participate in these discussions?
Speaker 4
Yes. We've been participating in the discussions with the the counties and with DSS. So you've been sort of a part of those, sort of understand the questions, and have been having back and forth about assumptions and approaches.
Speaker 1
Well, we'll be following up, with you all in about two or two weeks or so to see where you all are at, and then we can move on from there. Secondly, there are a series of requests in the agenda on pages thirteen and fourteen that really talk about the harm reductions list of proposals, which are found on pages nine and ten. I'm gonna be asking, for those requests to be responded to in writing on your best thinking on on those subjects. This includes we already talked about the $20,000,000 that was authorized by the legislature. This also includes the technical assistance on the county and labor requests for resources.
This also includes a request on what it would take to create additional capacity for the CFAP expansion to be a true food safety net against the federal cuts. On this item, I'm asking LAO for help in terms of the, what, language would could look like include additional people to be able to be eligible in the CFAP program. This also include assistance from your legal counsels on possible blanket exemptions to maximize CalFresh retention. We know you've all been doing deep dives in various populations in terms of blanket exemptions. We wanna make sure that if that's possible for other areas or other populations as well, that can also be used, of course, because especially with IHSS, we know that there's some crossover with Medi Cal.
And so those are some possible things that we could use on the Medi Cal side with my colleague, assembly member Addis as well. This also includes the fee feedback on the county match waiver and the PMC county penalties relief proposal, as well. We know that, this is a doozy, in terms of the county match, as well. We wanna make sure that we address that and get those responses in in writing. And then finally, a u universal ABOTS caseload number.
Alright? And then a disaggregation to fully explain how the caseload breaks down under HR one. So we know that the 665,000 and other numbers as well, what are these all these different people? What do these people look like? Right?
I'm assuming they don't all look the same or have the same circumstances. We need your help in trying to make sure that we take a look at that, as well. Can, the administration agree to provide all of what's being requested, by the subcommittee?
Speaker 1
Thank you, for that. Again, we would like the responses, in writing so that we can make sure, that we have that. And then once we get them in writing, committee members, if you would like, we will also get you the answers to that as well once we've received that. Any additional questions or comments from committee members? That was a lot.
Assembly member Lee.
Speaker 3
There's a lot, but very substantive and needed, chair Jackson. So I definitely appreciate, and I would second all the comments from the chair today. I know I missed a bit of the conversation earlier, but I would stress to the administration, department of finance, and, of course, d s DSS how important it is that we are mitigating as harm as such as possible. You know, this is the baseline survival safety net for our folks that is completely being screwed over by the federal government right now, and we have to do our best to help people that are going to be screwed over. I know in this context, this is a budgetary exercise.
And, unfortunately, the less people we serve, the less the state budget and state apparatus will be reflected that way. Right? But it shouldn't be incumbent upon the counties to go and figure it out. It shouldn't be incumbent on our working families just to figure out on their own. I remain concerned that of the early action items from the administration, it was about compliance or sometimes even overcompliance with the federal attitude towards working people and immigrants rather than actually doing harm mitigation.
So the proposals outlined today, I think, are a really great start for folks to consider, and I really do hope that before the May revise, we see some substitute action. Just as we saw, and I really appreciate DSS distributing a lot of the food bank money that went out when the federal government shut down for about two months, people were out in the cold. People did not almost at holiday time, did not have food access, and we were smart enough to deploy that money quick for our food banks. This is a similar situation in which we have months to watch this train come towards us, but we can't leave poor people out in the cold like that again. So I really do hope that that's reflected in the May revise and in subsequent conversations with the legislature because right now as the January proposal, I'm not seeing that.
Right now, what I'm seeing is just base compliance with the federal government, and that's it kinda thing. Right? Like, I feel there's more concern about the I know we're gonna talk about this later, but the payment error rate and compliance with that than protecting people who are going to literally lose their food benefits. So in addition to also some of Jackson's points about and a need for changes of our IT infrastructure, we need to get on that quickly. I mean, that is because we're so reliant on the federal infrastructure, that also double e screws our people over because we don't have the infrastructure to pivot and serve those people.
And it is something we've harped on for feels like years at this point that we needed these systems in place, and that is something that I think our positions demand even on a modern scale. So those things are important. And then I just also want to flag that, I understand how you calculated about 600,000 people who are probably at risk of losing losing coverage and losing their benefits. But, you know, unless there is a very adequate cover coordination with the county counties, I do fear that number is a very optimistic number. Right?
I mean, this is a system designed to basically kill working class people by paperwork. I mean, this is a system that is designed showing states that the more bureaucratic becomes, more and more people fall off. And I know that these estimations are people who should be eligible, should stay on, but there is the reality of people who just fall through the cracks of the system. So I just wanna echo again everything that our chair talked about today and really hope that the administration will come and talk to us and work with us way before the May revise because this a lot of disaster is looming ahead of us. It's really quick.
And I guess I'll save my questions for as we get into the other specific top policy topics. But, again, I appreciate all your participation and cooperation with us.
Speaker 1
I think my closing comments on this panel would just be this. We've been throwing around a number a number of numbers, but these are our friends and families and neighbors. These are real people. And from an ecological standpoint, the number is so large, the ripple effects certainly will be felt somewhere else. And then we're gonna be right back here scrambling to find out how do we clean up even that mess.
But if we just did everything we could now, we don't have to do another mess to clean up. And it starts with those of us here, in this room. So I would urge us, think outside your silos. We're all on the same team here. We're all trying to make sure these people are being served and they stay stable.
And we're human, so it's not gonna be perfect. But doggone it, if we can't say that we did absolutely everything that we could, shame on us. Alright? And so let's get to work, Let's support each other. Let's share information.
Let's get in these rooms. Right? I'll bring the I'll bring the food in the room if y'all need me to, whatever whatever we need to do. So thank you all very much for your service to the state of California. I know you're working hard.
I know these things are overwhelming, but we're gonna get through this together. Thank you all very much. Let's move on to issue number two, county administrative backfill. I'll ask, those who are part of this panel to, come on up. DSS, CWDA.
And director, you may begin when you're ready.
Speaker 2
Thank you, chair Jackson. Again, Jen Troya, the director of the Department of Social Services. And I will just note, for clarity that, Brian Gillette, is our deputy director and chief data officer, will be available for questions but not speaking on the panel itself.
Speaker 2
So HR one makes two significant changes in addition to the changes we were already talking about and several others to the way that the SNAP program or CalFresh in California is funded. The first is an administrative cost shift. There this cost shift prior to h r one and since the creation of SNAP, administrative costs have been split fifty fifty between the federal government and the state governments. In California, we split the state share of admin costs with counties. We pay the state 70% and the counties pay 30%.
Starting in federal fiscal year 2027, so that's 10/01/2026, the federal government will only pay 25% of all admin costs rather than 50. So that increases the state's share to 75%. As the state share increases under our current law structures in California, so do the county share. So, notably, these changes also apply to CalFresh outreach. We now receive only a 25% reimbursement from the federal government for CalFresh outreach expenses compared to the historical standard of 50% reimbursement.
The governor's budget reflects these changes. So this includes an increase in the budget year of March in general fund and $149,500,000 in county funds to cover the reduced federal share in the budget year, so beginning October 1. So next, I wanna shift gears and talk about the second major change to the way that SNAP is funded, And this is a benefit cost shift tied to state's payment error rates or the PER. Prior to HR one and since the creation of SNAP, benefit costs have been 100% federally funded. HR one instead establishes new benefit cost sharing tied to each state's per or payment error rate beginning as early as federal fiscal year 2028, so that's 10/01/2027.
The share of benefit cost each state is responsible for ranges from zero to 15% depending on their per in prior years. Importantly, benefit cost sharing may be delayed through federal fiscal year twenty thirty for states with a PER greater than the way it's written in the statute is 20% when multiplied by 1.5. But what that translates to is any state with a PER of over 13.4%. And that's if they have a PER higher than 13.4% in either federal fiscal year twenty five or federal fiscal year 2026. So the PER, stepping back for a second, measures the accuracy of each state's eligibility and benefit determinations based on a sample of cases.
It's the sum of both any underpayment and any overpayment of benefits issues. So this includes errors that may be made by the state, in our case, the counties, or errors that may be made by the clients. Our the per in California in federal fiscal year 2024, which is the most recently available, was 10.98%, which is on par with the national average. For California, if our per remained over 10% but below 13.4% in federal fiscal year 2025 and 2026, this would result in a 15% benefit cost share under HR one or $2,000,000,000 in new state costs beginning in federal fiscal year 2028. In response to this tremendous cost pressure, the legislature and governor gave us funding last year, and we have embarked on a multiyear accuracy improvement initiative, which is grounded in data and informed by our engagement with counties and partners.
I will turn it over to the deputy director to talk more about these efforts.
Speaker 5
Right. So as, director Cholla mentioned, as part of the 2526 budget, the legislature and the administration approved a onetime investment of about $20,000,000 general fund. We have ahead of with some of the funding, allocated, been leading a quantitative analysis of the drivers of the PERV. This analysis is helpful in understanding what the drivers are, and additional qualitative analysis is going to help us understand why these are drivers of the PERV. We started our contract with a partner called Westat to support this deeper qualitative analysis in more than 10 counties that is currently underway.
And what is clear from our initial work is, that there are no silver bullets. Right? Some early observations of, our data include that households not reporting an income change account for 27% of payment error dollars, and eliminating this type of error could reduce our per by up to three and a half percentage points. Is in another example, 14.5% of all our error dollars relate to the shelter deduction, including not accurately reporting shelter expenses or calculating it incorrectly. Eliminating this type of error could reduce the per by up to two percentage points.
And in another finding, nearly 50% of the errors, so regardless of whether they are caused by counties or by clients, involve not acting on information that is already available in the case record. It is important to note that in the past, implementation of major program changes, including things like eligibility policy changes or operational challenges such as the pandemic, have temporarily increased individual states' PERS and, in turn, the national average. We would expect a similar temporary effect resulting from the changes as significant as implementing the ABOD time limit at nearly statewide scale along with all of the other policy changes enacted, under HR one. So really emphasizing that this will be a multiyear effort. And as our analysis work continues, what we will be doing is prioritizing solutions based on that, analysis.
In parallel, we have already embarked on a multipronged approach to improving income verification, which was a clear driver of the error rate, as well as some proactive client communication tools. And so I I will say, assembly member Lee, to your comments about solutions that are good, not just for improving accuracy, but also good for clients. A couple of examples include implementation of new tools like Truev, a consent based income tool, which supports the facilitation of required verifications, expanded use of the work number, which is an existing third party payroll source that counties use. We would allow them to use it for more members of the household, reducing the amount of paperwork that counties have to submit, and automation of what is called the payment verification system, which is income data from the Social Security Administration and, the unemployment development department or, excuse me, employment development department, EDD. Our future solutions beyond these will be prioritized based on the results of our analysis, and we hope around midyear to have sort of phase two, set of solutions.
In closing, the administrative and benefit cost shifts introduced by HR one represent extremely significant changes to CalFresh. We are deeply committed to reducing the payment error rate while balancing, our priorities around client access.
Speaker 24
Thank you, chair Jackson and members. Andrew Shane, managing director with the County Welfare Directors Association. This panel couldn't be more wonky, and so I just wanna remind us that we are talking about food access. You know, as as we just heard, the complexity of HR one is surging the county workload and the need to invest in our county workforce, but at the same time, is depriving the resources that counties need in the cutting the federal share in half. That means that on October 1, overnight, counties face an effective 50% increase in their administrative share for CalFresh.
Many counties across the state, rural and urban, small and large, will be unable to meet this increased match. Our most recent survey indicates that approximately one in four counties struggle to meet their current match, and about half will be unable to meet the enhanced match. This cost shift is existential for counties to administer CalFresh and the Californians who rely on the program to eat. 60% highlighted their inability to invest in the harm reduction strategies we just got done talking about. 80% noted that their department or agency will be looking to make cuts going in the wrong direction at the time when we need more system capacity.
These will be severely impacted absent a match waiver, which is budget neutral. If a county cannot increase its match, a county loses out on the associated state and and general funds, approximately one third cut to program funding. The reason it is budget neutral, and we can get into this in the discussion, is that, thankfully, and we greatly appreciate that the governor's budget includes the state's share. But without the match waiver, a county that cannot increase its own share will have to forego those resources and the associated federal funds, leaving critical dollars on the table during this time. So I wanna reiterate that there is no scenario in which all counties are gonna be able to meet their elevated match.
There is strong precedent for this action. Match waivers were adopted in the Great Recession as well as COVID nineteen, and our proposed trailer bill largely mirrors those policies. This is temporary but critical relief for counties to adjust to the new new normal under HR one. Switching to the payment error rate. Again, we are asking for budget neutral action to hold counties harmless from penalties outside of their control.
I wanna underscore what the department just raised that the payment error rate measures accuracy, not fraud, and that one in five of the dollars that is in our error rate currently is recipients not getting enough food assistance. Again, the complexity of HR one is only going to increase this. As we just heard, California's error rate has been historically low. It's only re risen recently with the COVID nineteen and the new threats from HR one. In addition, the federal government shutdown in HR one, they're threatened to at least temporarily increase these payment errors outside for factors that counties can account for.
So pre HR one, there is long standing federal policy that when a state's error rate is higher than the national average for two years, a state can be assigned a fiscal penalty. And in California, a large portion of that is passed on to the 19 PMC, what are called performance measurement counties, which as you can see include both Riverside and Santa Clara. Even slight changes in the payment error rates or impacted counties can mean swings in the millions of dollars, again, threatening counting budget at this at this critical time. So we are requesting to hear the bill try this temporary relief just from the errors caused from these federal changes that are outside of county's control, which would prevent the costly and time consuming appeals process. Thank you.
Speaker 11
On the payment error rate, clearly, addressing that is a a key fiscal priority for the state. The LAO and the Department of Finance have both identified, structural deficits in the state budget in the out years, and this contributes to that significantly if the state is is required to pay a potential 15% share of benefit costs. It will be critical to see the results of the, analysis the department is doing so that we can know where to focus, and get the the most, improvement in the error rate, as quickly as possible. That concludes our comments on this this issue. Department of Finance.
Speaker 1
Members of the committee, anything on this item? Just real quick. Obviously, given the ABOD change requirements, how does this impact the penalty error rate?
Speaker 2
Traditionally, we have seen that major programmatic changes do have a temporary effect of increasing the payment error rate. The confusion in the program policy rules, the need for change management does result in a temporary increase in the error rate. So I think we would expect that that would be typical and that we would probably see that here as well. So while we are working in that multiyear period to bring the payment error rate down as much as possible, we recognize that it would be unsurprising to see temporarily an increase before that decrease.
Speaker 24
May I just add on to that briefly? There are helpful resources from the USDA that also uplift the importance of the the workforce and and the and and training in order to enact that. And just to say as long as and robust as the discussion you all just had was, we didn't even unpack all of the complexity of the policy or really underscore how many counties haven't had to implement this policy for decades. And so you can just imagine, you know, the complexity and the scale of of the situation confronting state, counties, and and workers.
Speaker 1
Obviously, the and the governor's January proposal, it did not it didn't seem like it reflected or that there is an expectation that counties can absorb the match requirement since it did not incorporate a waiver within the January budget. What gives you confidence that counties have the resources to be able to absorb that?
Speaker 12
To clarify, the governor's budget does, project that there are additional county funds given the the change in the federal cost share. This is consistent with current law, current practice, and that's what you see in in the proposal.
Speaker 4
I think if I if I can add, as as my colleague explained, so the governor's budget does presume that there would be the additional county match. Hearing the concern, as we said in the other panel, happy to sort of continue conversations about the, approach moving forward to implement h r one and appropriate resources, but there's nothing built into the governor's budget around a match waiver at this point.
Speaker 1
So the Department of Finance, does believe the counties can afford that?
Speaker 4
It's consistent with the current law and so it just carries forward the existing cost sharing ratio moving forward adjusting for the change in the the federal match. So it keeps the seventy thirty.
Speaker 1
Yeah. So let me just state for the record that county law current law and the ability of counties to pay are not two aren't the same thing. And so I I really wanna make sure that we double down because, again, if we want to improve error rates, right, and we wanna improve error rates, why? Because we know that it'll have greater fiscal impact to the state and the counties. So if we want to pre if we want to prevent those penalties from coming, we wanna make sure that counties are resourced appropriately to ensure that we don't have this penalty rate, this penalty in the first place.
So I just wanna make sure that we're not setting ourselves up for failure to say that we're not giving counties what they need, but we want to make sure that we don't have a penalty from the federal government, but yet we're not helping them make sure that they're helping us as a state. So I want us to make sure that we're gonna continue to drill back down on that. That's why it's important for counties, administration, and finance to sit together. We gotta figure that out because that's a huge red flag there that the legislature does intend to make sure that we address as well. Any additional questions or comments from members of the committee?
Seeing none, we wanna thank you all very much. We will continue to keep this item open as we continue to move down to this through this process. We'll now move on to the next issue, issue number three, California Food Assistance Program. If you are on panel number three, come on up. CDSS, Nourish California, Western Central Law and Poverty.
Apparently, there should be a carrot here. Am I
Speaker 1
You should have put a carrot right there. Alright. Anyway, CDSS, you may begin when you're ready.
Speaker 5
Okay. Again, Alexis Fernandez Garcia with the Department of Social Services. We spoke about this a little earlier on, but I will, just reiterate some of what we shared, so we're all on the same page. So the California Food Assistance Program is a state funded benefit program that provides CalFresh equivalent benefits to certain lawfully present noncitizens in California who are not eligible for federal SNAP solely because of their immigration status. And so as director Troya mentioned, a federal option to administer CFAP was provided to states as a result of the passage of the federal personal responsibility and work opportunity reconciliation act of 1996 or FIORA and, eligibility for CFAP today is tied to that act.
With regards to the CFAP expansion to people 55 years of age or older regardless of immigration status, that is on track for implementation on 10/01/2027 subject to appropriation. For that purpose, let me tell you a little bit about our efforts that are underway. We've been holding quarterly webinars with all stakeholders to engage participants and provide updates on the CFAP expansion as well as, hosting several advisory groups on specific components of implementation. We are in the final stages or just selected a outreach contractor to support outreach efforts ahead of the October 1 date. A total of 12,500,000.0 is budgeted for this outreach.
And lastly, automation efforts, have resumed as of January 2026. Approximately 15%, give or take, of the required automation has been completed. The remaining work includes reviewing existing designs, assessing potential modifications based on the policy guidance that we have issued since we started, and completing testing to ensure it functions within the parameters of the system. A total of 26,000,000 is budgeted for automation from 2324 through 2627. In response to your questions about further expanding CFAP, and whether it can be used to provide food benefits to people who may lose CalFresh due to HR one, I'll just restate again, kind of the two the two reasons that is not possible today.
First, state statute currently limits CFAP eligibility to lawfully present noncitizens who lost federal CalFresh eligibility due to Peora. And then second, California currently implements CFAP based on that federal option. That option allows CFAP benefits to be issued like CalFresh, for example, direct from the federal treasury. If California were to extend CFAP eligibility, to additional, groups of individuals, two things would be required, state statute change and the, administrative infrastructure that would be available on 10/01/2027 under the automation that is currently underway. Also, highlighted in the agenda, it was recently discovered that some lawfully present and financially eligible noncitizens who were eligible for federal CalFresh benefits prior to HR one may have inadvertently been provided state funded CFAP benefits.
Once these potential errors were identified, the deter the department determined they were likely due to a significant influx of new humanitarian immigrants, the complexity of the immigration statuses, the documentation documentation that we had to collect, and rapidly changing federal guidance, often delayed. So these errors will be corrected as counties implement changes to noncitizen ship or, excuse me, noncitizen eligibility under HR one beginning 04/01/2026. So as we reassess immigration status for households, we will appropriately assign people either to federal CalFresh or remove them from federal Cal or CFAP depending on their circumstances. Based on a point in time estimate, we assume approximately 22,700 noncitizens may be currently incorrectly receiving state funded CFAP. I will just, emphasize that given the complexity of this policy area, we continue to research the potential errors and refine our impact estimates, so you will likely see new numbers that are, again, more refined with the additional, research that we have been doing.
Like other lawfully present noncitizens who lose federal CalFresh, these individuals, can receive food benefits under the CFAP expansion, assuming they are age 55 and older, and that that expansion is funded. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Great. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Jackie Mendelson with Nourish California in partnership with the California Immigrant Policy Center, we lead the food for all campaign. And I'm here today on behalf of the Food For All Coalition, a partnership of more than a 100 organizations across the state working to advance immigrant rights and food security. And our coalition has been fighting for equitable food access since 2021.
And many partners have been on the front lines in response to harmful federal actions working directly with immigrant Californians and their families to ensure that they are safe, fed, healthy, and supported. And today, I'm here with three urgent requests. First, 72,000 humanitarian immigrants in California have been abandoned by the federal government as we've spoken about, many after escaping violence, persecution, and torture by their government, and some after being of service to The US as translators in Afghanistan. Due only to their immigration status, they will soon be inhumanely kicked off of food assistance. So we ask that you lead on California's values of immigrant inclusion, hold the line by folding this population into the CFAP expansion and mitigating the harm that Trump's HR one will bring.
And to ready the state to support newly excluded immigrants in CFAP, please invest in additional support to administrators to assist this population in enrolling and staying enrolled in benefits. Second, it is critical that you keep your promise to implement the food for all expansion of CFAP to Californians ages 55 and older regardless of immigration status in October 2027. And third, ensuring the system is ready to do this. We are heartened to see preparation for this historic expansion still on track, and we urge you to renew your commitment to an on time implementation. Immigrant communities already face hardship in getting the food that they need, and many now have to choose between safety from kidnapping and leaving home to work or get groceries.
Amidst federal violence that threatens the stability and security of many immigrant communities, Food for All is a beacon of hope representing a permanent solution that enables families to feed themselves with dignity. The automation and systems readiness work for the 55 plus expansion is the same expansion work that will enable us to protect Californians from feeling the brunt of present and future harm from the federal government. So by renewing your commitment to this expansion, you are not only ensuring that immigrant communities who have been waiting too long for lifesaving food assistance will be able to feed their families, but you will also ensure that our state has a separate system that will usher in a new era of supporting Californians from federal harm. Importantly, please consider how we can sequence other automation updates to CFAP without delaying your commitment to the 55 plus expansion. I wanna conclude by saying that as a coalition, we align ourselves in support of my colleagues here in the room, here advancing other solutions to the extreme harm that HR one will bring.
We recognize there are many priorities in this moment, but we see these as complementary rather than competing. In order for our state to thrive, California must take every action possible to ensure that our residents aren't denied the basic resources that they need. We are closely coordinated, united in a shared mission, and want to continue to work together. Our vision is food for all. We mean for all Californians with no exceptions or exclusions.
And we and the coalition are here for whatever additional information that you need to advance these requests. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1
Thank you. Over here. Oh, you didn't like that chair. Oh, okay. This one's nicer.
Oh. Alright. Oh, oh, we get a little picky around here. Okay.
Speaker 27
Good afternoon, doctor Jackson and committee members. I'm Keeley O'Brien with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and I'm here representing the California Anti Hunger Response and Employment Training Coalition. And we are also a proud member of the Food for All Coalition, so we are definitely united. Our collective goal is to expand our investment in state funded food benefits to prevent people from being cruelly cut off and to protect our existing commitment to expand CFAP. Bypassing HR one, the federal government traded away our health and food benefits in exchange for handouts to the ultra wealthy.
In fact, HR one tax provisions benefiting just the top 1% highest income people will cost the federal government $1,500,000,000,000 annually, nearly identical to the size and scope of the cuts to SNAP and Medi Cal Medicaid. Excuse me. One of these SNAP cuts was the dramatic expansion of the work requirement. As a result of this cut, 06/5000 Californians are projected to lose food assistance. People being cut off face significant barriers to meeting work rules even though about 75% of them are working.
But they work in low wage jobs with unstable hours, inconsistent schedules, caregiving responsibilities, physical limitations, and transportation barriers. The research is clear. Work requirements will make this even worse. They do not increase employment or earnings, and they have a disproportionate racial impact. People will be cut off due to fluctuating hours and barriers to reporting, not because they found stable jobs.
And when food benefits are cut off, people struggle to afford food, rent, transportation, and health health care, so health and educational outcomes will get worse and families will be destabilized. The solution is a robust state level anti hunger response. CARET benefits are state funded food assistance benefits equal to what people would have received through CalFresh. These benefits would be provided to people who lose eligibility because of the work requirement time limit and would ensure people continue to have access to employment training programs. The cost is approximately $1,300,000,000.
But failing to invest in these benefits would remove billions from local economies, and we cannot help people meet work requirements by shrinking the economies in which they're trying to find work. And let's be clear, California can afford this. The water's edge corporate tax loophole alone drains 3 to $3,500,000,000 annually from state coffers. We could fund carrot benefits three times over just by asking multinational corporations to stop hiding their California made profits in the Cayman Islands. The 200 billionaires in California hold around $2,000,000,000,000 in wealth.
Fully funding these benefits will cost less than point 065% of that hoarded wealth. We could feed every person in the state for the next decade with just the growth in billionaire wealth from the last six months. This is not a scarcity problem. It requires us to prioritize. We are not gonna choose between feeding one hungry family and another just because California's most profitable corporations would prefer to stash their wealth in offshore accounts than pay their fair share in state taxes like the rest of us.
Finally, frontline workers frontline county workers cannot implement these complex rules without resources. The 20 doll the $20,000,000 general fund previously authorized must be released immediately. Otherwise, eligible people will be wrongly cut off and error rates will rise. Our budget reflects our values, and with this budget, California must do what is right and become the first state in the country to protect its communities from this hunger cliff. It would be absolutely shameful to ask millions of Californians to sacrifice their health care and their food benefits just because we're too afraid to make the wealthy pay their fair share.
Thank you for your partnership on these critical goals and appreciate the opportunity to speak today.
Speaker 11
Thank you, mister chair. Ryan Woolsey with the LEO. On the planned expansion of CFAP to individuals aged 55 and older regardless of immigration status, This is a a kind of policy that is inherently challenging to estimate the cost of it just because of limitations in the data about the eligible, population and and lags in when that data becomes available. As part of our review of the governor's budget, we we took another look at this item, and what we found is that, the data that are available indicate that the undocumented population in the country grew significantly from 2021 to 2024, and then at the same time, likely had some offsetting reductions beginning in 2025, related to changes in in federal immigration enforcement. At the same time, in California, we have been implementing expansions in the Medi Cal program to the undocumented population, and these expansions have resulted in much higher enrollment than previously projected, and this is consistent with the the national growth in the undocumented population.
So based on that, we believe that the cost to implement the planned expansion likely exceeds previous estimates. Our understanding is that the most recent estimate was on the order of about a $170,000,000 a year, but we believe that based on the experience with the Medi Cal program, annual cost would likely be between 250 and 630,000,000. And that wide range really illustrates, the significant uncertainty around take up, who's eligible. We would note that, in an initial year, when it's implemented, the cost likely would not be that high. That's intended to be, like, an ongoing fully phased in, impact, but we wanted to raise that for the legislature's consideration in the budget process.
Speaker 1
Members of the committee? A couple of oh, did you in assembly member Lee.
Speaker 3
Just wanna clarify with the LAO. So you said that the cost actually I think you said it was $630,000,000. And is that the ramp up for the infrastructure, or is that the direct payments for the population that you were saying?
Speaker 11
We believe that the ongoing cost just for the benefits, would be between $2.50 and 630,000,000 ongoing. So that's the infrastructure updates.
Speaker 3
Right. So you're saying on an annual basis, should the program be inclusive of all the folks who wanna include in there between the $2.50 and $630,000,000 ballpark be and because it's variable because of the populations. Okay. The second question is we had a bit of this discussion in the first panel about adapting this CFAP program to include more people, you know, legal California citizens who are being bumped off of the programs and stuff. And I understand that this is gonna be an element of discussion later on, but just to clarify, as DSS, you had said that a lot of this program is governed by state statute.
Right? So it really isn't within our determination of who's in the CFAP program. Correct?
Speaker 5
So once the infrastructure that we've been discussing is in place Right. Currently on track for 10/01/2027, we would have a stand alone program within our eligibility system, and it would be up to the state to determine the eligibility criteria for that program. And Right. In most cases, that would require state statute change.
Speaker 3
Right. And then secondly, you know, I know this is, unscheduled for October '27. Is there any real way to speed this up so it's not one more year from from now? And and in case, you know, I've seen other programs where October 1 will be missed, will come and go. So is there a way we can actually speed this up?
Is it a matter of what is the matter of, like, can it be done faster? Do we put more money towards it? What what is the issue here? Why timing?
Speaker 5
So we would have to consult with our Kalsas partners Yeah. About the any option to to move that forward. I will highlight two things. If additional eligibility criteria are introduced, it depends a lot on the complex the complexity of those criteria and how long it would take to sort of design that in the system. And the second thing I'll mention is that with the number of changes that are federally required within the same system, the HR one changes, the Medi Cal changes related to redeterminations and whatnot, we would just have to look at the total calendar leading up to that date to see if it could be moved up.
Speaker 1
I would ask that you check-in with your Kelsall's partners and get that, get that answer in terms of fast tracking the technology part. I know the eligibility part is separate from just making sure the system can do what it's designed to do while we work on who it needs to serve. But if you can get that to assembly member Lee and to this committee, that would be appreciated, please.
Speaker 3
Mister chair, if I can just add on to and to this to this point and not to be too Silicon Valley about it, you know, we I my district's creating AI that can trick people faster and faster every six months. I am just trying to understand what is the real technical impasse that the programming or something can't understand more computing. I mean, the laws take a lot of time to do, and they just gotta factor into the system. I know the governor is a big fan of innovation technology, so I'm wondering why is it that the same innovation innovative spirit can't be applied in Kelsaus. So if we could follow-up about, like, what what those real I don't know if it's, like, a real technological impasse or what it ever it is.
But I do think this is a matter of urgency. And if it's an infrastructure thing, it's just very much solvable in that case. So that's why I just wanna add some urgency to that. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member. I think, my notes tell me here that, we are expecting 22,700 recipients to lose CFAP. Is that correct?
Speaker 5
That is the current estimate, and we're continuing to do refinements to see if that number is accurate.
Speaker 1
And and who are these people? Kind of tell tell us who these people are.
Speaker 5
So what we can tell based on the data is that when a large number of humanitarian, parolees arrived in The US from Afghanistan, Ukraine, and later, from additional parolee programs, there were eligibility errors at the local level. The federal guidance at that time was very delayed, and it created a period where the prolys applied for food assistance, but we lacked the guidance to understand if they should be placed into federal CalFresh or CFAP. My best what we can tell from our reviews is that in an abundance of trying to get people onto benefits, they were placed into CFAP instead of federal CalFresh in inadvertent error. And so now as we've gone back to to look at immigration status again, particularly under HR one, we will have to make that correction, and so they will be removed from CFAP instead of being removed from federal CalFresh.
Speaker 1
And how many of those will be who are will also be ineligible for CalFresh? Meaning, we know they don't believe on be in CFAP. How many of them will be able to receive CalFresh? None of them?
Speaker 1
And is it just determined that they are ineligible or that they don't need assistance?
Speaker 5
This is purely a technical policy issue. They are financially eligible, but they are not eligible under the immigration statuses under HR one.
Speaker 1
You would would you agree that given their income that most likely they are facing food insecurity?
Speaker 5
Yes. So the these are people who are financially eligible for food benefits.
Speaker 2
If I may, I just wanna add one one point again, Jen Troya, on behalf of CDSS. Just to add, there are some individuals depending on their immigration status who could become eligible again for CFAP. So as your immigration status changes, so that that does not negate the overarching point that many of them may end up in the position of food insecurity, but I did wanna add that nuance that in looking at their eligibility, we would also determine whether there was a change that allowed them to be served by CFAP under the CFAP rules.
Speaker 5
So this goes back to the original discussion around the current, state statute for CFAP and the federal option that we use to administer CFAP being tied to Peora. So we would need to opt out of that federal option, have the infrastructure in place in the system that we've been talking about, specific to the 10/01/2027 date, and then, change state statute as well.
Speaker 1
Is there anything we can plan on doing for them in the meantime? Because we're still looking for almost a year or more for them having no assistance. And so are there anything in is there anything that you foresee we can do for them? I mean, obviously, we knew that there was the 72,000 people who were going to be losing CalFresh, So we tried to supercharge our food banks as a way to to divert them to somewhere else so that they can still get food of assistance. I mean, 22,000 is a large number, and I will I will I mean, hopefully, they're not in the same county because that can create quite an instability in a county for that to happen.
Right?
Speaker 5
So they are part of our total impact estimate. So I I just wanna be clear. It's not, 72,000 plus 22. They are part of our total HR one impact estimate. And as director Troya mentioned earlier, we have in the past looked at alternative options, things like one time payments either within the system or outside the system.
I mean, we could work together, provide technical assistance on that topic, to understand what the the options would be.
Speaker 1
Okay. Jackie, you asked this committee to make some commitments. I'm not sure if I have good news for you. I'm one that does believe that we need additional revenue. Some of the bills that were cited, my name is on them.
But absent revenue, we are now being given yet another task, and you're right. It's because we're federal government is making room for billionaires to make more billions. But now we have 665,000 people who are going to be losing food assistance. That's estimated to cost, rough numbers, $2,800,000,000. And my goal or my thinking is and you can correct me if I'm wrong.
It's totally fine. If I was in your position, I would probably correct me if I was, you know, that first, we have to make sure that if they're currently receiving benefits and they lose them, it seems to me that the first thing we should prioritize are those to keep them being serviced so that we don't lose ground. And then once we have them stable, we continue to move forward to new populations. And so I'm not sure if I mean, number one, can we do that while still making the October deadline for 2027? I don't know.
Right? I mean, we're asking a lot of questions. We're trying to figure this out and all that kind of stuff. What's my initial thinking? My initial thinking is I'm not sure if we'll be we'll be able to.
We'll have to see after the May revise and what additional dollars may be available and those type of things. Do we want to serve them all? You better believe it. But I also don't want to I think it's also my responsibility just to show just how bad these decisions are. And I don't think I would do anyone justice by trying to sugarcoat, which is really a man made decision to allow people to suffer by the federal government, but this is what we are dealt with.
And we're gonna do the best we can to deal with this issue because members I'm a humanist. I believe that if you're human, we you and you need some support. My faith tells me, feed them if they're hungry. And so I think that we have a whole a hard road ahead of us, and I'm glad you all are with us to go along this journey to push us, to educate us, to be thought partners in this on how we can move forward. But at the same time, I wanna let people know regardless, and to be honest, depending on how much, even if we decided to or we're able to get additional revenue, the numbers we're looking at for additional revenue is still not enough to handle the amount of cuts that the federal government has done.
And so at the end of the day, do I predict that people are going to be hurt? I absolutely do. Your thoughts.
Speaker 9
Listen. I can't because I I understand, I hear you, and I, like, I fully respect and also appreciate this position because, like you said earlier today, like we've talked about in many conversations, this is part of holding the line. And if we don't hold the line, we lose ground. And I I recognize that we and the coalition recognize that we're having many con of these hard conversations in order to best be able to support you and the committee in making these tough decisions. And I'm I'm not saying that we don't hold the line, but, you know, what I am saying is that and you you support this.
It's just that no Californian should go hungry. So that, you know, this difficult, weird conversation that HR one is forcing us to have, I mean, HR one is operating as intended. It's it's trying to pit us against each other. It's trying to pit these hunger priorities against each other among many other evil things that it's done. And and so I'm so with you.
And we're we and food for all are are so with you, and we wanna work with you because we're like I said, we're united in this vision. We want food for all while in our work, we aim to have food for all regardless of immigration status, and that's our North Star. We'll keep we will keep pushing you on that. I promise we will keep bringing that to you. We also believe in food for all Californians, regardless of immigration status, regardless of age, regardless of of any of these identities.
So I think, you know, the message we'll keep holding is that no Californian should go hungry. We can't be picking and choosing who gets to put food on the table and feed their families. And, you know, thank you for your support and leadership on addressing revenue solutions so that we can think outside of our existing framework. Yeah. And thank you for your historic support on Food for All.
Speaker 1
No. Absolutely. I just put my name on it. Assembly member Lee and Damon Conley Assemblyman Conley are the ones leading it on it, but certainly wanna be supportive as much as I can be. I don't mean to put you on the spot.
I think that we're I I think that the public needs to hear us debate this. You see what I'm saying? We have a lot of conversations behind the scenes, and, you know, I think it's important for us to have these tough discussions and even hear tough answers from me to let people understand just the extent in which we are trying to think about these things. Right? And so I I I thank you for engaging with me on the on this.
Any additional questions or comments from any members? I thank this panel so very much. Really appreciate you.
Speaker 1
We will move on to issue number four, emergency food banks and California food fundings. And CDSS, you may begin, when you are ready.
Speaker 5
So CDSS works with a network of food banks statewide to administer the Federal Emergency Food Assistance Program or TFAP, the Federal Commodity Supplemental Food Assistance Program, and the state funded Cal Food Program. The Cal Food Program specifically allocates state funding to TFAP food banks for the purchase, storage, and transportation of food grown or produced in California. Cal Food receives an annual baseline appropriation of $8,000,000, which CDSS allocates to a network of 49 food banks that serve all 58 counties. Many CDSS food bank partners are also members of the California Association of Food Banks, which you'll hear from in just a moment, and which reported that in '23 and 2024, their members served an average of 6,000,000 people per month, up from 4,500,000 during the height of the pandemic in 2021. 2025 estimates will be available soon, but early indications are that food banks have continued to serve more people in '25 than in previous years.
As such, we expect demand to increase throughout 2026 because of the significant changes to CalFresh eligibility, which we've discussed today. Including all state and federal funding sources administered by CDSS, food banks, state, and federal resources declined 20 per 8% year over year from federal fiscal excuse me, state fiscal year 2324 to 2425. Because the 2526 data for federal food programs is not yet available, the most recent year to year percentage change is unknown. But anecdotally, we are seeing less federal food flowing through the TFAP system than in previous years. Additionally, USDA offered several TFAP bonus offerings in 2425 that have not been replicated in 2526, and this has had a significant impact on supplemental food resources for food banks.
It's also worth noting that since, 2223, food bank partners have received 260,000,000 in CalFood funding, including 24,000,000 in the baseline total, providing a critical amount of food when it has been needed most. As we move through the remainder of the current year, food banks see fewer resources on the horizon from both state and federal force, sources. We have heard from food banks that without this additional funding, food banks will be more dependent on philanthropic sources to try to backfill the loss. They may also have to limit the number of distributions or scale back the size of each distribution to help stretch their resources. As we have previously hide it highlighted, HR one will impact who is able to access CalFresh benefits, which will very likely have a direct impact on the demand on local food banks.
I'll stop there and hand it to my colleague.
Speaker 30
Hello. My name is Josh Wright. I am the director of government relations for the California Association of Food Banks. We represent 43 food banks that partner with nearly 6,000 agencies across the state, and our mission is to end hunger in California. H r our latest estimate based on the census household poll survey indicates that about 22% of households in California are facing food insecurity, while nearly 27% of households with children are food insecure.
Black and Latino households face even deeper disparities. HR one will exacerbate food in insecurity in California as the real human impacts of the largest cuts to CalFresh in the program's history begin to take effect. Many Californians turn to food banks in times of crisis, and we expect a significant surge in demand as h r one's key provisions take effect. We pulled our members in November after the government shutdown that delayed CalFresh benefits. 92% of food banks reported increases in the number of households served and the amount of food distributed during the shutdown.
55% of food banks reported distributing more pounds of food last year compared to the previous year. And it's important to note that some of the food banks that did not distribute more food noted that this was due to the decrease in federal TFAB foods rather than a lack of need. Food banks are already serving a record 6,000,000 Californians per month, up from 4,500,000 during the height of the pandemic. While serving more people, food banks have lost federal funding. Last year, food banks received 38% less food, over a $100,000,000 less from the USDA's emergency food assistance program known as TFAP.
This means that food banks are already in the difficult situation of serving a record number of people with less federal funding before the CalFresh cuts and HR one take effect. Additionally, the state's primary funding source for food banks, CalFood, is set to drop to its baseline funding of just $8,000,000 if new funding is not approved. This is a 90% cut from last year's funding of 80,000,000. The CalFood program enables food banks to purchase California grown and produced foods that aren't typically donated. CalFood, helps food banks meet the diverse needs of different communities they serve while also supporting California's critical food producers.
Our food banks continue to emphasize to us that additional food funding is the most important resource for meeting current and future local needs. This year, we are asking you to sustain vital CalFood funding at 60,000,000 annually and approve an additional 50,000,000 of one time funding to help us respond to HR one for a total of a 110,000,000 in the twenty twenty six twenty seven budget. We also urge you to shorten the lines at food banks by enrolling and keeping as many Californians on CalFresh as possible. This includes ensuring county workers have the resources they need to provide robust client engagement and exemption screening. And it includes preserving the CalFresh outreach network, which is affected by the administrative cost shifts in HR one.
In addition to my comments on CalFood, I also wanted to uplift the budget request of the California Association of Diapers, Diaper Banks. I'm sorry. Diaper banks are asking for 16,500,000.0 in ongoing funding in the twenty twenty six twenty seven budget to sustain the distribution of diapers and wipes to families in need. Diapers cost upwards of a $100 per month, and a survey from the National Diaper Bank Network found that 25% of parents reported missing five days of work per month because they did not have enough diapers to send their children to day care. Unfortunately, even more families will struggle to access diapers as essential safety net, programs that low income families rely on have been cut under HR one.
Without this vital funding, diaper bank, funds will expire in June of June 30 of this year, and we will lose the network of diaper banks that provided over 204,000,000 diapers to 2,700,000 infants since its creation in 2022, just as they are needed the most. A representative from the Association of Diaper Banks is available for questions on this. We look forward to partnering with the legislature to protect and strengthen the state's social safety net. Thank you for your commitment to ensuring all Californians have food on their table.
Speaker 1
Administration, do we have any numbers on our burn rate yet from because, obviously, given the shutdown, we had to we released funds early. What is our burn rate? What are we and do we have enough funds currently that you believe will be sufficient for the remainder of this fiscal year?
Speaker 5
So we highlighted that as of around mid January, 48% of ongoing Cal food funding, so the baseline had been sent spent and 14% of cow food had been spent. That said
Speaker 5
So 5.3 out of the 8,000,000 spent. This is of mid as of mid January. Mhmm. And 29,000,000 of the augmentation. Mhmm.
Now, there is a delay because of the way we receive invoices after the fact, so spending has exceeded that. We just haven't seen it yet in our invoices.
Speaker 1
Okay. We're gonna request to continue to get updates as you get updated numbers so that we can keep on track. Do you believe, Josh, do you believe that, you guys are gonna make it through the fiscal year?
Speaker 30
It's it's hard to say as we see you know, it's hard to predict what our need will be. We do space out how we spend CalFu dollars. Food banks don't typically spend through things with CalFu dollars immediately. They use the CalFu dollars to help balance their sheets as they're trying to taking in, you know, donations and other things as well. So the the spend rate tends to be intentionally spread over time rather than rapidly deteriorating.
So it's hard to it's hard to know definitively at this point. But as we face this unprecedented need, we know that we we will definitely need more funding in the future.
Speaker 1
I would anticipate that as well. Members of the committee, any questions on this item? So we we will obviously hold this item open, but as stated in the agenda, I want agenda, I wanna continue to ask for updates on the utilization rate of our CalFU dollars up until when do you anticipate the next numbers coming out?
Speaker 5
I think we can get to one update at the end of this month, the next set of we have we spend approximately 5% per month, so we can get you an update for February, and then there'll be a delay till the next update.
Speaker 1
And I think that would be a good indicator on whether there's an uptick or not, right, to try to see if there's been a surge in utilization, those type of things. And so we just wanna keep you know, I'm always trying to look for ways to kinda get a indication on the pulse of the population, what they're going through. And it seems to me that this might be a good indication as we keep getting updates. Is it exceeding our cash flow? You know, is it exceeding our expectations in terms of utilization rates?
You know, are things slowing down, whatever it may be? So please keep us up to date, and we'll look forward to the next updated numbers at the end of do you mean the February or the March?
Speaker 5
We are at the February. So, I mean, we will get you an update for spending through February. We might need to get it to you in early March.
Speaker 1
It's a short one. Okay. We're on the same page now. You know, I'm trying to trying to figure this Okay. Baby Well, thank you so much for for this panel.
Really appreciate it. Let's let's keep sharing information. We'll move on to issue number five. And just as the panel is coming up, this committee continues to be interested on how we can continue to make sure that if students are eligible for CalFresh, we continue to lower the barriers necessary to help them to get the assistance that they are that they are owed. I I must say that CDSS can is doing a great job of continuing to be inventive and find ways to be able to do so, but we wanna continue to find ways that we can keep our students housed and fed as much as possible.
One of the things that we are interested in is how do we continue to break down silos? How do we make sure that we continue to create more no wrong door processes so that if they are utilizing or applying for one thing that, you know, they can be told whether they might be eligible for another and being able to get access to that without going to yet another site, yet another department, yet to another entity to be able to do so. And so with that, CDSS, why don't you kick us off? Sure.
Speaker 5
So California SafetyNet, as you mentioned, is designed to ensure that Californians, including students, do not have to choose between buying food and meeting other basic needs. To that end, we continue to work with partners to simplify access to CalFresh for students, wherever federal law allows and working around some of those restrictions that we face. The data speaks to the cumulative impact of our collective work to make CalFresh more accessible. Since student specific data has been tracked and added to the CalFresh data dashboard about three years ago, the student caseload has grown by over 25% by from 158,000 students to over 200,000 students monthly. In the past year alone, the student caseload grew by nearly 7%, outpacing the general caseload significantly, which experienced a loss of about 3% during the same time period.
A few things have contributed to this. We're grateful for our CalFresh outreach network, seven prime con contractors and a 161 community based organizations across the state who collectively assisted over a 185,000 college students in fiscal year twenty twenty five. As well, our team has continued to work with our partners to provide policy and technical assistance, particularly our student eligibility work group, which continues to this day, webinars, trainings, presentations to counties, CalFresh student handbook, and the data dashboard to track our progress. We also continue to look for ways to streamline processes and reduce burden for students and county eligibility workers alike. For example, we have identified ways to administratively streamline the verification process for some exemptions from the student work rule.
The goal is to improve administrative efficiency and accuracy for both college students who are applying for CalFresh and, county workers. Responsive to the this request for discussion around a proposal to leverage FAFSA data to help enroll students into CalFresh. CDSS, along with, the higher education segments and, the student aid commission, have partnered with the California Policy Lab to better understand how our collective administrative data could be used to measure participation amongst, CalFresh eligible students and how to improve participation in face, of the federal constraints. FAFSA data has been useful in providing estimates in aggregate and could be useful in flagging potentially eligible students. However, there are some limitations in its use for CalFresh and eligibility on a more individual level basis.
Because, the FAFSA reports annual income versus the income required for CalFresh, which is the last thirty days of income. As well, because it provides income retrospectively, in some cases, it could be up to multiple years as well as representative of a different household composition and because the definitions of income elements aren't aligned. So, for example, we look at gross monthly income versus something like taxable income. So those are some of the challenges we've uncovered working together to assess this proposal. Much more work would have to be done to understanding the feasibility of using such data, beyond flagging it for eligibility, but we remain committed to identifying pathways to reduce, burden and continue to increase this, caseload.
Erin, you no. Kathleen.
Speaker 31
Thank you, doctor Jackson and members of the committee. The California Student Aid Commission is grateful for us to be here today to participate in this informational hearing to look for those opportunities to collaborate with the California Department of Social Services to boost the CalFresh enrollment for qualifying students. The commission has a long standing relationship with the Department of Social Services and our work together over the years that has allowed us to reach more Cal Grant students to apply for CalFresh and to use the Cal Grant award letter as a waiver for the work requirement and to allow them to identify themselves as an eligible CalFresh, recipient. So thank you, director Troya and deputy director Fernandez Garcia for this partnership. Looking forward to continuing that work to extend our outreach and our efforts to streamline the process.
We currently have over a 110,000 students that currently receive a Cal Grant that are qualified that qualify for the CalFresh benefits. But still, the process is still a separate process. The commission is responsible for making preliminary Cal Grant awards to students using FAFSA information we receive. As a centralized agency, we have over 2,000,000 student records with data elements that we use to predetermine financial aid resources. As you may know, in the 2022, the commission convened a statewide CalFresh work group and took a student centered approach to understand how students experience the benefits system and the process.
This approach offered a comprehensive look at the pain points in the process that hinder students from accessing the benefits promptly. The report, access to proper nutrition equals college success, making CalFresh work for students, offered some recommendations. And in this report, it was cited that at California colleges and universities, one in three college students report that they experience food insecurity, otherwise known as a lack of consistent access to food in any given month. The federal Pell Grant, one of the primary sources of basic living aid for students, has lost tremendous purchasing power over the years. Many college students have decided to forego a college education because of the high living costs and the need to work.
CalFresh in California is one of the largest anti hunger programs that benefit these college students struggling with having consistent access to healthy nutritional food. And only a fraction of these California students living in poverty poverty apply for and receive coverage benefits. Under the commission's student success blueprint, our work focuses on three goals, equity and access, equity and support, and equity and success. Under support goal support number two, we've identified a strategic direction to support our awareness and access to CalFresh with opportunities for students and families and any other relevant social services. The commission looks forward to working with stakeholders to identify more streamlined processes for these students and allow them to qualify for CalFresh in a more timely manner without having to take additional steps and separate applications to keep reminding them that they live in poverty.
We look forward to taking the next steps, including opportunities for a pilot a statewide pilot program that automatically enrolls eligible students into the CalFresh program. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Alright. Thank you, chair and committee. My name is Aaron Kunz. I'm with the Center for Healthy Communities, and we do, CalFresh outreach with college campuses across the state. We are the largest college network in the country.
And Alexis plagiarized many of my notes here from my team, so I'm gonna go off script a little bit and talk just generally. Think about the first about the FAFSA integration. I think that generally, when we talk to our team and many of what what you shared as well, is that simply these two applications do not speak the same language. Their the definitions are much different between the two programs. Some of the some of the data that FAFSA gets is from a a point in time, whereas CalFresh data for for eligibility criteria needs to be more current.
Right? And so there's some things that are are challenging there. But that doesn't mean there's things we cannot do. And so we do have some recommendations about using the data that we do get in FAFSA to better determine potential eligibility and to make sure we're notifying those students. And so I think that's there's a couple of things related to that, FAFSA income, dependency status, work status, and a public benefits indicator to know which students may be eligible or which are already receiving.
There's also things that we can do with direct links to BenefitsCal to the application. So that's these are things we can do now to make sure that students can apply even though it is a separate process, but make sure that they can do that in that flow and and be directly kinda connected there. Long term, a FAFSA and CalFresh integration should be explored in some form of work group and collaboration, and I encourage the committee to go beyond CalFresh and to look at any public benefit resource. If we're gonna do CalFresh, you might as well do it all and have an have an application that one student can complete
Speaker 21
Hey. There's already a group, Aspire, that's working on this, that's partnered with California Competes, we met to actually start talking through the idea. And if we don't think it, we don't dream it, it's never gonna be possible. And we had a lot of conversations. CDSS was there, partners from across the state were there, and we had a great initial conversation about how we could build something out where there's a single one application for resources for going to higher education, which includes public benefits.
So I think that's something that I would uplift, and then I would just thank, our partners for all the work that's been done. We've also seen the local programs that increase employability. There's been a couple case studies that have shown about a 10% increase in enrollment for students that that were part of that. And I know that CDSS and the state is working hard to increase the amount of local programs and increase employability that students can be, eligible for. So I think we're making great progress, but we gotta, do some more.
Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 11
LAO, nothing to add right now, but we're available to help the committee as you continue to explore this issue.
Speaker 1
You you know, it seems to me that good thing about technology is that it can be molded to what we need it to do. And so I'm never I'm always perplexed when someone says, you know, well, it wasn't designed that way. Yeah. I know it wasn't originally designed that way. So you're saying it's impossible to tweak it?
Mhmm. You see what I'm saying? And so I'm thinking just like we tweaked the, you know, DMV to register people to vote and things like that, I'm sure there's a way to do it. We just haven't sat down and decided we're gonna do it. And so I'm wondering if, number one, I I am interested in possibly doing a a pilot on this and how it would be done.
Obviously, LAO, we would need some help on, you know, what would what would it cost us to do a pilot like this. And I'm sure the majority of it is more coding expenses. And lord, I know another state coding, state programming project. I'm almost afraid to see the number, but I'm gonna ask for the number to see how much it would cost us to do a pilot on this because, you know, just registering for college alone can be daunting, let alone housing and food and anything else that they may need. Right?
And so it seems to me that if there's yet another barrier that we can dismantle for students, the better off we will be. So, Elliot, I'm gonna ask that you kinda work help us work on something that will be able to get us how much it would cost to do something like this and whatever information else. And, of course, we can double back if you need more details on what in the world I'm asking for. I can be able to do that as well.
Speaker 1
Committee members, any additional questions or comments on this item? Doctor Sharp Collins?
Speaker 16
of my questions doctor Jackson had already took, which was the cost for the pilot trying to figure out on how much this would actually cost. But until we can get something up and going, one of my questions is, are you working with EOP or EOPS because they have separate applications to make sure that some students are eligible? Are you guys currently working with other departments until we can get the system, you know, up up and functioning?
Speaker 21
Yeah. I think yeah. Absolutely. So with programs like that, there are students that can be more likely eligible because they're in a program, like we talked about the programs that increase employability. And so on the college campus, like on the ground at a at a college campus, a lot of the outreach teams are working closely with programs like EOP or EOPS who may have students that are more likely eligible.
And so from a promotional standpoint, that absolutely does does occur at college campuses.
Speaker 5
And then from a policy perspective, we've made sure that they are captured in this group of programs we keep referencing, local programs to increase employability or LPIE, we call them. If you participate in that, then you are exempt from the rule that requires you to work twenty hours a week in order to receive CalFresh while being a student. So that offers them kind of, unique pathway to to eligibility.
Speaker 5
So there isn't a category that's specific to athletes, but depending on, why they are receiving a scholarship or through what source there might be other exemption categories. I don't know if you wanna speak to the outreach component.
Speaker 21
Yeah. I think I can speak a little bit outreach component, and I won't speak seek it about a specific there are or there is a a bill that's being implemented on March 1, AB 42, which is the goal is to basically make sure that we're not counting educational expense related grants and scholarships for as income for a student. And so that may help with what you mentioned, and that I know the CDSS will be implementing that, but that's something that we'll be helping educate campus staff about so that they make sure students are aware that some of those may not count for their income, which could help them.
Speaker 16
Thank you. My only my only comment, after all this is, we know that the qualification levels is is extremely low as far as income and so forth. And the number of students that are going when you're applying, you're putting your your parents' information on on those documents. Right? Yep.
Doctor Mufasa.
Speaker 16
Are you or, you know, I didn't qualify for anything, you know, honestly, except for, loans. So subsidized and unsubsidized. No no Pell Grant. No federal grant. Just no no nothing.
And then so even though, you know, the family's income was at one level when in reality, we look at the number of people that are in the household, and it still boils down to still need some type of assistance, but you are deemed ineligible Mhmm. Because of your parent income. So I'm I'm just wondering how can we navigate the system. I know it's probably beyond our our efforts. It's something for what we we can do, but what else can we do to ensure that we're not, I guess you could say, losing students that we know, even though their parents' income is one thing, they are literally, you know, paycheck to paycheck or, not even paycheck to paycheck.
They actually are going to the food banks that are on different campuses or they're using someone else's benefits to try to get food because their parents' income has deemed them disqualified for certain things. How can we do something to assist those besides just having a food bank on campuses?
Speaker 5
I can say that because we've recognized that this complexity that you're highlighting here, we have intentionally built, the relationship with CSU Chico as one of our prime contractors to focus on student eligibility. So they are one of our largest outreach, providers, and we've also invested as a state in testing some of these key messages that we need to use for outreach. For example, reminding students that CalFresh considers the purchase and prepare household while you are in school, not your parents' income or, you know, the situation during the summer or where you you know, depending on the many different complex circumstances that students are in these days and trying to help navigate this series of really complex federal rules in the way that we target our outreach and the the messaging that we use specifically for that population.
Speaker 16
The reason why I was bringing that up because if we're doing an application to identify, they've they're gonna get weeded out.
Speaker 16
So it boils down to the messaging side of it of how can we make sure that they are, aware that they still have the opportunity to seek out the services. And I'd just one of my concerns is that the application process will still weed out those folks. So we have to make sure that we capture them some way, shape, or form. And, maybe maybe even in, trying to include a cost factor, just a guesstimation of what it could be for outreach, as you continue to pull up you know, pull back some more information for us so that way we can know because we may have to do that, you know, I guess, from us to identify some funding to help make sure that that that advertisement is done. So I just don't want us to lose out on the messaging to those that will fall into that because if that was me, I would have fell into that.
Speaker 21
Yeah. And that's I think that's why it's so important to make sure that we're that on college campuses that these things are built systematically into the college campus so that they're you know, you're seeing it in your classroom presentation at the beginning of the year. You're seeing it, you know, at the food pantry is front and center, and the basic needs center is front and center so that all students get a tour of it, and they're aware of it, and there's people checking in and because it it it you can. You can fall through the cracks, and we don't want students to do that. And we wanna make sure that every student that is eligible for these benefits receives it because that's a whole another component that we didn't get into, how much they're bringing to our state in federal dollars that you know, tax dollars that we pay that we're not recuperating.
And so we we must maximize students gaining access to those benefits.
Speaker 16
Thank you. Because you said it's a 110,000 students. How many how many students did you say?
Speaker 16
Two. Okay. Over two. So if we had some outreach going to identify these things, I guarantee you we will have more than 200.
Speaker 21
Oh, yeah. Absolutely. There's a significant portion of students that are, eligible but not receiving the benefits.
Speaker 16
Okay. Well, thank you. That was it. It's just highlighting, athletes, scholarships, making sure that they are aware and, confirming the EOP and EOPS outreach, but also that part of making sure that we at least, put forth how much it could cost for the advertisement, and making sure that we capture kids as we consider this process to pilot or whichever, making sure that we do that. So those are the points I wanted to cover.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, doctor Sharp Collins. I think we were in the same boat. My mom started making too much money for me to be able to give financial aid, but then had to take out those loans. For the first time, I had to tell my mom, I need you to stop making so much money. You're messing with my plans, mama.
You're messing with my plans. I mean and also, obviously, there's two different catchments. Right? Because if you are I think you have to continue to report your parents' income up till '24, '25?
Speaker 1
'24. Right? And so, obviously, there's a point where financial aid focuses on family income. How and then CalFresh focuses on individual income. And so it's just a matter of making sure that we're asking the diversification of the questions necessary to see whether we can do that.
But, again, that's what tech that's how great technology is. You can ask more than one kind of question. Right?
Speaker 31
And the FAFSA does include that. So the FAFSA has a portion for the student to submit their information separate from what the parents have.
Speaker 1
Absolutely. Well, thank you so much. I look forward to this journey. We're gonna leave this issue open and then move on to the next issue. Thank you all.
Speaker 21
Chair, can I say just one more thing? Sure. Appreciate it. It was kinda in reference to what we were talking about with outreach. We there because of HR one, there's been a change in the reimbursement rate, which is impact which is impacting the counties, campuses, and partners like ourselves where we've had a significant reduction.
And so I think that's something that the committee may wanna take into account if y'all are wanting to increase outreach, that there's a there's been a cut from HR one because of that as well. So just wanna make sure that was in there.
Speaker 1
Make sure you send us that information. Think that's gonna be important. And then I would also say also reach out to assembly member Alvarez as well, which I think will be an important member to also be working with. Absolutely. Appreciate it.
Thank you. Okay. Issue number six. We are on our way. Issue number six.
We are over the hump. Should we take a break so that we can make this last longer? No? Oh, okay.
Speaker 15
Alright. Thank you very much, chair and committee members. My name is Ryan Gillette. I'm the deputy director with the, California Department of Social Services. The California Fruit and Vegetable or CFNV EBT project was established by Assembly Bill eighteen eleven in 2018 as part of the budget.
The primary objective was to test a new strategy to increase the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables among CalFresh participants. Clients shopping at participating retailers are able to earn a dollar for dollar match up to $60 per month in incentives for each qualifying fruit or vegetable purchase. To achieve this, the CDSS, in collaboration with Office of Technology and Solutions Integration, awarded grants to three nonprofit organizations to help implement the pilot. The first phase of this pilot ran from February 2023 through April 2024 and issued over $10,500,000 in incentives. CDSS was then allocated an additional $10,000,000 in the Budget Act of 2024 to relaunch the pilot.
The second phase ran October 2024 through February through February and issued 7,400,000.0 in incentives. In the twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six budget, CDSS was again is allocated funding for CF and V totaling $36,000,000, and I wanna thank assembly member Lee for the support, that he made in helping that come to fruition. The current phase relaunched and is currently operational as of 11/17/2025. The program is active in 91 retail locations and one farmer's market spanning 10 California counties, Santa Clara, Alameda, Monterey, Mendocino, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, and San Diego. As of February 2020 February 17, just over 100,000 unique households have been issued CF and V incentives since the relaunch.
These households have averaged about $50 per month, in monthly incentive redemptions, and so far, about $10,100,000 has been issued. CFNV is currently experiencing a monthly burn rate of approximately 3,500,000. To project the general fund requirements, if we were to, fund this for the full, twenty twenty six, twenty seven fiscal year, We can extrapolate based on the current monthly burn rate and the and the operational scope. We estimate a total cost of approximately $44,000,000 to operate the program at its current scale. This does assume a continuation of the current operational scale, participation rates, and incentive structures.
Should awareness of the program or popularity of the program increase, that burn rate could change, and we could imagine those numbers going up. It is important to note that the statutory authority to continue operating this recurring program in its current form would, expires on 12/31/2026, so we would, require an extension.
Speaker 18
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Laina Brook, and I'm deputy director with Full Well. We are a California based nonprofit organization working to advance a healthy, just, and sustainable food system, And we're proudly working closely with Nourish California to advocate for the continuation and expansion of the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Pilot Program. I liked the acronym better. And I'll also start by thanking assembly member Lee, chair Jackson, and the members of this committee for your long standing leadership on this issue, for prioritizing healthy food for families, and for including this in today's hearing.
I also just want to extend my appreciation to staff at CDSS and OTSI for their efforts related to program implementation. So the third phase of the fruit and veggie EBT program started in November, as Ryan had just mentioned. And what we've seen over the last few months is a steady increase in the number of households benefiting from the program. We've seen an increase in the average monthly benefit earned and the overall amount of incentives earned. And you'll see that in a handout that was passed around a few minutes ago.
And based on the mid month data that we got for February, we know that or it looks like we're actually on track to exceed the January burn rate of $3,500,000. So I think it's gonna be really interesting to keep a close eye on what happens over the next few months. But, in the broader kind of context, I think these statistics illustrate, the significant demand for this program, and I think they also reinforce how CalFresh serves as the foundation for our state's food safety net. And so we do urge the legislature, as we've been talking about today, to do everything in its power to mitigate the harms that were wrought by HR one and to keep as many participants on CalFresh as possible. But we also know that even before HR one happened, CalFresh benefits amount benefit amounts fell short.
They were insufficient and that too many families weren't having their needs met and many, many participants were burning through their benefits long before month's end. And so I think that's where this fruit and vegetable pilot program comes into play, because it helps close that gap. And I think it also sets us on a course for the twenty first century safety net that I know, chair Jackson has been talking about and envisioning, and I find that really inspiring. So in short, we're hoping that this year, the legislature is able to allocate a $100,000,000 and to support this program. And this will enable us, first of all, to run the program year round, which has not yet happened.
And I think this will be really helpful to families and to grocers that are struggling with the start and stop. And we're also hoping to see this program expand to many communities that aren't getting served right now, including the Sacramento area, Central Valley, and most of Northern California. So I I'll just name I know I have to wrap, but that I I think it's worth just noting that this program is incredibly efficient. It does have tangible benefits and outcomes to the health of our community members, and it has an economic multiplier effect that is hitting multiple sectors. So I think and I hope that it it's continuing to be a worthy investment.
Thank you.
Speaker 3
Oh, it's a good guess. Well, I appreciate the breakdown on this and highlighting the work we've done over the years together with the department and with Fullwell together. I wanna highlight again, of course, the great chart that you passed out over here showing the, unique households that have been served in this program where we started about 30,000 households and now we're peaking at 70, and, of course, you said about a 100,000 households now. I just wanna clarify for this chart, though, is this cumulative in each month added, or is this 30,000 in December, and then January is 40, you know, 40,000. So it's it's unique each time.
And this is done with basically little to no marketing whatsoever right now. And so this is organically spread among Calfresh recipients, among the retailers themselves. And so this year, I'm proposing or I'm asking the budgets to try to get a $100,000,000 to double the scope of, Calvary's family served and also geography. What we've seen right now is there is a concentration of, of course, region and of availability, and that's really the scope because of construction of the of the funding necessary right now. And I really truly believe this is not only a moral imperative to serve and and get our California's nutritious produce made in California for the most part, but also it is an economic stimulus right now.
Because of the trade wars that president Trump has thrown us into and all these things are happening right now, this money is completely circulating back into our economy right now, into the food economy, where our grocers and small grocers and and food mark. Farmers markets are struggling right now. Like, that money is going directly to feeding people and helping businesses right now. Other things I wanna note, of course, and a couple questions for the department is, you know, by statute, we had author we had asked for a evaluation in July 2025. I understand the report was off yesterday and ahead of this committee, so I understand your strong reverence for doctor Jackson as it was published yesterday.
I wanna ask why there was such a long delay in getting us evaluation even though we are already starting to put out the money for the this cycle now. So can you first talk about what caused the delay in the evaluation?
Speaker 15
Yes. Yeah. Again, we did wanna make sure that we had the opportunity to fully understand the impacts of the program and and write a comprehensive description of what we'd seen, what was successful, and what our recommendations were for for the program. Because this was a pilot, there were a number of considerations that we needed to explore related to what ongoing sustainability of this would look like. We did make some choices that, as part of the pilot, were things that we would need to modify if this were going to become something that were a a permanent ongoing state program, and getting some of those answers took a little bit longer than expected, coupled with the fact that the federal budget bill that we all have been talking about came out.
There there's just, frankly, been been a lot of on on our plates. So I I do, again, apologize for the delay on that, but I'm glad we were able to get this out to you before, even if only shortly before the hearing.
Speaker 3
Yes. I just always point this out, and, you know, this department is not singularly unique in not getting our statutory deadlines, but it is, I think, an important aspect as we practice our legislative oversight is that especially when put them in statute, I think it is important to respect those deadlines. Second thing, I think among some of the recommendations and lessons learned from that report, you talked about wanting better integration with Kelsaus. I think, of course, today, talked about how Kelsaus integration is still kind of underway. Can you in addition to talking about how you wanna integrate Kelsaus, can you talk about some other lessons learned from the pilots?
Now well, now we're technically on the third pilot in that sense. Can you talk about lessons learned and then specific specifically addressing the Kalsas integration aspect too?
Speaker 15
Yes. Absolutely. So one of the key things that we would wanna consider if as this continues to be a a recurring program is actually automating into Kalsaaz the reconciliation of the benefit amounts. The way that we designed this so that we could pilot this, test it, get it out the door quickly was we did not build a back end automated link to Kalsaaz that would say when someone's, incentive benefit had been earned, that that actually would get recorded in CalSAWs. Right now, that that does not appear on CalSAWs.
So eligibility workers can see it, but they have to log in to the EBT system to see it. And for the most part, that's not an issue, but it's definitely not a best practice to, have our our official system of record not fully represent all of the, funding that a person might have available on their card. So that has sometimes caused confusion if someone goes into an office and they're sitting with a caseworker and they see the numbers and the caseworker sees one number, the client thinks they have a different number, they then have to they can figure out the right answer, but it's just an extra step. So if that were something that we were going to be doing ongoing on a regular basis, we'd wanna make sure that we had that regular, automated linkage. The next thing that we would wanna do, when we originally designed this program, we did it through a grantee model that helped coordinate the recruiting of the stores, the operating of it, making sure that everything is running smoothly.
This is probably something that we would wanna bring in house to the state, and have those, that coordination administration of the program be done with state staff. So we'd need to have some resources to stand it up. Not a huge ask, but there would be a workload associated with doing that. And then the last two are more of, I guess, sort of policy preference questions for you all to consider. As as Lina mentioned, you know, right now, this program does only operate in a a limited part of the state.
And for the people that have access to it, it's it's great. You know, we've heard really good reports of or really good, feedback of the the impact, the benefits that people are are feeling from having access to this resource. But it does mean that people that don't happen to live in, you know, reasonable driving distance of of one of these stores, don't have access to it. And so we would wanna think about how can we scale this to more places, maybe trying to think a little bit strategically around, you do we wanna focus on food deserts? Do we wanna focus on, you know, maybe an online purchase system, something like that.
Right? The challenge being that as we brought in the scope of people that can access it, the cost can balloon very quickly. So if this were a thing that we made of it, you know, really did wanna scale it statewide, really did want everyone to have access to it, it's, you know, $1,500,000,000 ballpark, right, to run this for a year. And, you know, I'm not sure how much couch cushion money you have lying around for something like that. So those are the those are the main the main questions.
If we did have a more limited program, though, we didn't wanna, you know, go all in on that. I think we would wanna think a little bit more as well about if there's any way to smooth the the turning on and off of the program, the ratcheting of it so that so that there's not as much of a uncertainty of if someone's gonna show up at the store and not know if they're gonna be able to earn that incentive or not.
Speaker 3
And on that ratcheting effect, we've had two program pauses where the money was just completely burned down. Once after March 2024 and then once after around February 2025. Has the has the Department of Finance or your department seen any sort of cost inefficiency or basically waste cost, basically, from having to stop and restart the program each time like that?
Speaker 15
There are some costs. They're not they're not huge. There is a little bit of messaging that we have to do that the retailers have to do to, you know, basically tell people that that the program is is shutting down. It's I'd say it's more of a a sort of client burden administrative friction, but it's not a significant cost to turn it on and off.
Speaker 3
Okay. Very good. Yeah. Again, I just wanna highlight this how important, programs like this are and especially if we have a social safety of the twenty first century. Although I'd argue this is a Victorian age idea, so we're finally coming to fruition from a nineteenth century idea, but we're finally getting to point where we can get you know, I think our goal will be universal coverage of fresh produce grown in California for all people, and this is one of those ways we can give back and have the circular economy.
So just uplift for the subcommittee how important and beneficial it is for so many different sectors. And I look forward to diving into the report more thoroughly now that it's been published. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member Lee, and thank you for your leadership, on this issue. Obviously, I understand the $100,000,000, ask. Can you separate that number between which part of that is expansion and which part of that is making it year round?
Speaker 18
Yep. Great question. So right now, we don't know we don't have great confidence as to what a burn rate could look like on this program given the current number of locations where it's operating because we really have at our disposal, like, two and a half months of data to work with, which what is what you have. Ryan just shared that there's an estimate of $44,000,000 if it was operating at 3 and a half million. I think the minute it goes up, which we think it will in February, that number is gonna change.
So what I would love to do, if you're comfortable with it, is to circle back to this conversation maybe even in a week or two weeks once we have the February the full February month data at our disposal, and that'll give us three months to look at all of December, January, and February, to have a sense as to whether our burn rates are increasing, or not or whether they're plateauing. We just don't have enough information right now to be able to give a really confident estimate.
Speaker 1
You know, I I I certainly appreciate that. I think that especially when I know we've been paying a lot of attention to those clients who are going to be losing CalFresh, But I think this is a perfect program specifically for those clients who will get reduced Exactly. Amount of assistance as well, that how can we help them continue to make that baby stretch as much as we can and particularly in a way where it actually will increase healthier intake. Yeah. And so this this is something I really wanna double down on.
Mhmm. In a way, of course, I'm more than happy to once you get that third month. Let's have continued discussions because I I do see this as one of those things that fits nicely into how we can continue to stabilize
Speaker 1
Okay. Any other questions on this? Thank you so much for this panel. Really appreciate it. We'll leave this item open.
Those coming up for issue number seven, CalWORKS, rate of homelessness and denial rates. And CDSS, you may begin when you're ready. Okay.
Speaker 5
I am back. Alexis Fernandez Garcia with the Department of Social Services. CalWORKS provides vital cash assistance, employment, and supportive services such as childcare to California families with children. It offers a wide array of barrier removal services, including whole family services such as family stabilization and reunification, housing support, behavioral health, and legal services designed to help families address barriers and achieve long term family stability and economic mobility. To be eligible, families must meet specific income, residency, and citizenship requirements.
To address directly a question in the agenda and as the agenda highlights, we recently shared reports indicating a denial rate of about 46% for CalWORKS. Given this and using new data access tools available to the department, we're conducting additional research to refine our understanding of the current denial rate as well as the potential drivers of the denial rate. For example, comparing denials due to procedural issues versus eligibility issues such as being over income. To complement this research, our CalWorks case review team has also expanded the scope of their reviews for this upcoming year to include denied cases, providing more insights into individual case circumstances. So we're going out to counties, and reviewing denied cases, to get that additional insight.
We hope to have more to share soon with the committee on the outcomes of this additional research. CalWORKS serves roughly 360,000 families and 700,000 children annually. Approximately 90% are female led households and nearly 60% identify as Hispanic. Currently, the maximum aid payment for a family of three is $1,175 per month, which is 53% of the federal poverty level. While this assistance is a lifeline and dramatically reduces deep poverty for children and families participating in coworks, many families still face significant housing instability.
This challenge will likely be further impacted by a constrained federal safety net. In October 2025, sixteen percent of CalWORKS applicants identified as homeless. I'll now turn it over to deputy director Hana Azamati to talk more about three specific CalWORKS programs, that are responsive to this crisis.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon. Again, my name is Hana Azamati. I'm the deputy director for the housing and homelessness division within CDSS, and I'm going to speak to the trends in the programs that support families in the CalWORKS, program, who also have housing needs. So first, we have the family stabilization program. It provides intensive case management for families in crisis.
In '20 in fiscal year 2425, the program, provided, housing support to 11,000 families. Second, we have the CalWORKS homeless assistance program, also referred to as It's an entitlement program that helps families secure sixteen days of temporary shelter, obtain permanent housing via security deposits and last month's rent, or maintain permanent housing by covering up to two months of rental arrears. Last year, 15% of the CalWORKS caseload requested this assistance, which is an increase over the prior year. And then third, we have the CalWORKS Housing Support Program, or HSP. It offers flexible housing supports and financial assistance, including housing navigation and rental assistance.
And since 2014, it has served more than 100,000 families and permanently housed more than 51,000 families. Both and HSP served the highest numbers of families in fiscal year twenty four twenty five, the highest number of families than any prior year of programming. For HSP specifically, through the budget acts of 2021 and 2022, the state made investments of 285,000,000 annually in HSP. That included the 95,000,000 in ongoing annual funding and 190,000,000 in one time augmentations. As the Budget Act of 2025 did not include any additional one time funding for HSP, grantees are now in the process of adjusting programs, both in terms of the number of families served and the scope of supports to be provided as the funding returns to the baseline level of 95,000,000 annually.
CDSS and county projections indicate that in fiscal year twenty five-twenty six, HSP will be able to serve approximately 10,000 to 11,000 families, which represents a projected 30% to 40% reduction in families served compared to the last fiscal year. As a result, some counties are pausing new enrollments, eliminating emergency hotel stays, and reducing the duration of financial assistance, again, as part of that transition to the baseline funding. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Good afternoon, doctor Jackson and committee members. Thank you for having me here today. My name is Michael Miniglia, deputy director for Riverside County Department Of Public Social Services. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share about two programs that make a real difference in the lives of families, the CalWORKS housing support program and the family stabilization services program. Both of these programs are essential to ensuring the safety and well-being of our families, chill and children in our communities.
With average rents in Riverside County exceeding $2,200 per month, these programs deliver critical services to our most vulnerable populations. On average, the housing support program provides help to more than 230 Riverside County residents and families each year. And behind every number is a child sleeping safely, a parent breathing easier, and a family building a future. Housing isn't just shelter. It's the foundation for health, education, and opportunity.
I'd like to share one story that captures the heart of what this program is all about. It's the story of a father, a man who faced unimaginable challenges, addiction, mental health struggles, domestic violence, homelessness, and the fear of losing his child. His world was crumbling, and yet he held on to one thing, his love for his child and his determination to build a better life. When he enrolled in the CalWORKS program, everything started to change. He was no longer facing challenges alone with the financial and food assistance we connected him to through family stabilization services and the housing support program.
Through the intensive case management these programs provided, he gained access to clothing, transportation, and the guidance he needed to secure employment while continuing his recovery. Ultimately, this father achieved stable housing, received rental subsidies, and obtained the essentials to create a home. In addition, through linkages, our partnership between CalWORKS and child wear welfare services, he received the support to strengthen his family and ensure his child's safety. Slowly, step by step, this father rebuilt his life. He earned full custody of his child.
His child welfare case was closed. And in a moment of triumph, he chose to discontinue his CalWorks case because he had achieved what he once felt was impossible, self sufficiency. This individual was so proud of his accomplishment and thankful for these programs that he agreed to share a success story in a video that our media team in Riverside County put together, and I would be happy to share that video link with you, as soon as possible as it's truly an amazing story. Finally, we wish to proudly share that our partners here with CWDA have formally prioritized and is championing our legislative proposal, a b twenty five sixty seven, authored by assembly member Celeste Rodriguez. A b twenty five sixty seven would remove the current requirement that CalWORKs applicants first apply for all unconditionally available income before accessing emergency homeless assistance or immediate need benefits.
This change would allow families experiencing acute crises to receive timely housing and income support while maintaining the program's core eligibility protections. AB twenty five sixty seven advances county's commitment to improving Californians' access to essential services and streamlining program requirements. We respectfully request your support for this important measure and look forward to collaborating with the assembly as needed as it advances through the legislative process. Once again, we thank you for your continued support of these life changing programs and appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
Speaker 33
Alright. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Yesenia Robancho, associate director of policy and strategy at End Child Poverty California. Our organization is a proud member of the Reimagine Cow Works coalition made up of poverty fighting organizations, Cow Works parents, labor, and welfare rights advocates fighting for the resources and strategies to ensure Cow Works built freedom and security for families. I will focus my comments to share about who our CalWORKs families are, the needs of the families on the program, and I will end by sharing just a couple of the efforts we are pushing this year to continue our work to reimagine CalWORKs.
As shared, CalWORKs serves approximately 700,000 children living in more than 360,000 families across California. 90% of CalWORKs families are headed primarily by women, women of color with 60% of Latinas, Latina mothers and 18% of black mothers. Nearly half of coworks parents do not have a high school diploma or GED, underscoring the significant educational and employment barriers families are working to over overcome while raising their children. Latino children represent 75% of child only cases. These are cases where at least one household member is excluded from their grant calculation.
This may be due to immigration status or other eligibility restrictions. As a result, families are expected to stretch already modest grants to support more people than the grant recognizes. That means families are living on fixed incomes that fall below 50% of the federal poverty level, experiencing what researchers call deep or toxic poverty. This matters because CalWORKS is one of California's primary tools for supporting children living in deep poverty. For man for many families, cash aid is the difference between housing stability and homelessness.
In recognition of this reality, the legislature made a commitment in the twenty eighteen-twenty nineteen budget act to bring CalWORKs grants up to 50% of the federal poverty level to the assistance unit plus one standard. With that, I want to acknowledge and celebrate the CalWORKs reforms included in last year's budget to reimagine the program. The recent reforms represent an important step in transforming an outdated design,
Speaker 33
that has historically been shaped by racist and sexist assumptions suggesting that people experiencing poverty lack motivation rather than access to opportunity. I want to thank Parent Voices California and CDSS for their incredible leadership and implementation efforts that meaningfully bring parents, department staff, and advocates together to ensure we get this right. Our reimagine CalWORKs efforts continue this year as we advance proposals to eliminate harmful sanctions that disproportionately impact children, including the truancy sanction affecting 16 to seven year olds, 17 year olds, and the immunization sanction impacting children under six. At a time when CalWORKs families are faced are facing increased federal disinvestment and other safety net programs such as CalFresh and Medical and face uncertainty due to illegal federal funding freezes and loss of funding to cradle to career networks, California must work to remove economic sanctions that destabilize families and increase their likelihood of experiencing homelessness. Finally, we look forward to partnering with the Department of Social Services and the legislature to ensure that the positive changes enacted in SP eleven nineteen are effective by 07/01/2026.
Thank you for your time and your consideration on these commitments.
Speaker 11
Thank you, mister chair. In terms of the CalWORKs budget overall, the governor's budget, is proposing essentially workload funding, and we don't have any concerns with the projections or assumptions, but we will be revisiting those at the time of the mere revision. Did wanna highlight, the federal funding freeze that, came about early last month where, the state sued and and was able to obtain a preliminary injunction allowing the funds to continue to flow in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which provides federal support for CalWORKS, as well as a number of other programs and wanted to highlight this as a a potential area for legislative oversight of how the state would respond in the event that there was an extended freeze in in the TANF block grant. And lastly, I just wanna acknowledge the request in the agenda for assistance from our office on language around reporting on on housing instability in CalWORKs, and we're happy to help with that, and we'll work with your staff.
Speaker 16
It's not so much a question. Just highlighting that last year, I did have a, an effort to do everything I can to remove four key barriers, pertaining to CalWORKs. And this year, I know you're champion, a b twenty five sixty seven, but come on a champion. Assume they bill seventeen fifty five. That one is us removing the one hundred hour rule.
So that way, we can do something as far as trying to increase the the eligibility. So there is a lot of work that is coming down the pipeline, so we can do everything we can to ensure that families are able to, remain eligible, for for CalWORKS. So just know that there will be some other things coming down to help remove some of the barriers. Thank you. I just wanna make sure you knew about 1755.
Alright.
Speaker 1
A couple of things. The first one is, can the administration provide a more comprehensive profile of homelessness and housing instability in the CalWORKs caseload? What are we looking at now? How what what percentage of those in cow works are usually in need of homelessness assistance?
Speaker 14
So we have a few different ways that we currently can look at that question that I'll speak to, and then there are a few different approaches that are in the works that will help complement a more complete picture. So at the moment, what we have shared in the past is, looking at the percent of families in the CalWORKS program who also request the homeless assistance program since it's an entitlement, and therefore, it can kind of serve as a proxy of the percent of families in the CalWORKS program who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of housing ins or, housing instability. What we see there is 15% of, families that are in the CalWORKS program request homeless the homeless assistance program, and that rate, translates to about 82,000 families, for fiscal year twenty four twenty five. A new approach that we've been able to, utilize is to look at the percent of employees that, at the point of application for the CalWORKS program self identify as experiencing homelessness. When you look at it that way, what you find is that about 16% of applicants in the CalWORKS program experience homelessness.
So fairly consistent with the other measure that I described, fifteen to sixteen percent. Now what, I know the agenda pointed out is that this does not give us a full sort of look at the caseload because it's relying on these proxies of either at application, what is, you know, or is a family identifying as experiencing homelessness or are they proactively requesting homeless assistance, which it is right that a family might be requesting a different program for support or trying to independently resolve experiencing homelessness, and therefore, that would not be captured. To address that, we have two other approaches that we're working on developing. One is to make connections between the CalWORKS dataset and the, homeless data integration system dataset, which reflects, local homeless systems, programs. And so that will help us identify what percent of families that are in the CalWORKS program are also taking up any services within the local homeless, system.
So that would reflect, for example, HSP, but also many other programs that are locally provided. It would not reflect because that does not report into HDIS, which is the local data system feeding into HDIS. So that will give us a more comprehensive picture. And then at the same time, what we're also trying to do is look at individual level data for HSP, and family stabilization to get a deduplicated understanding of if like, across those three programs, what percent of of families are taking up those programs that are also in CalWORKs. So there isn't sort of a silver bullet answer, but there are these different approaches that we're trying to really work on that are providing a comprehensive picture.
And I would say the percent of applicants experiencing homelessness at this point is probably the best measure that's most consistent in terms of data collection over time.
Speaker 1
So you mentioned a lot of acronyms, and I think the sun is down, which means I did not process not one thing. Can you tell me the name of our homeless assistance programs that are within the CalWORKS program?
Speaker 1
What do you anticipate? Meaning, what what is the baseline funding for the program?
Speaker 1
Correct. And what's the base funding for that in as in terms of what's the proposal for that in the January budget?
Speaker 14
So for the CalWORKS homeless assistance program, because it's an entitlement, there isn't baseline funding per maybe I should actually defer to the Department of Finance if you wanna speak to that. Sorry.
Speaker 4
I think my my colleague is maybe looking for the exact numbers. We might have that for you in a moment. But I think generally, as as the department was noting, it's an entitlement program. And so as part of the January budget and the May revision, we revised the fiscal based on caseload information. So it's not like other programs we've discussed where there is a fixed amount and resources are adjusted to stay within that appropriation.
Here, the appropriation will be adjusted given demand and eligibility.
Speaker 1
But there has been time where the state has augmented that funding. Correct?
Speaker 14
So I I think you might be thinking about the housing support program that also serves CalWORKs families. So that program, that's exactly right. We had two rounds of one time funding of $190,000,000 each in 'twenty one, 'twenty two, and 'twenty two, 'twenty three. Those rounds of funding have now expired, and we're back to the baseline level of funding, which is 95,000,000 a year. So yeah.
Speaker 1
Program. Okay. That's what I was trying to I knew there was something missing there. I was like, we're we're missing a letter somewhere. And so before, we've brought the h the HSP program.
We have it's been as high as a 100 and
Speaker 1
year because 95 plus 1,000,000. Yes. Got it. Got it. And now we're back down to $90.95.
5. Given the caseload projections Mhmm. How much would we need to be able to make sure that we're are serving the amount of people who may be in need of that? Given the loose projections, right, do you think it would be in the $195,000,000 area?
Speaker 14
I think we would take that question back if it's okay. I would say if you look at, like, historic spending, that can be a kind of indication of the level of need and capacity that counties have built up to. But in terms of the projection of what it would take to meet that, I think we would wanna, take that back and and
Speaker 1
So I would ask that you, get that back to us in writing in terms of the HSP program. What would be the appropriate amount of dollars if we wanted to make sure that it's in line with the caseload of those who might be in need of programs. I'm gonna ask LAO to help us out with that as well, to give us your assessments on the HSP program and how many additional dollars would we need to be able to to do that. I would also ask LAO to think about some of the provisions that are within a b twenty five sixty seven and a b seventeen fifty five in terms of some of those barriers that we continue to try to break down, both in terms of the requirement that there's proof of exhausting all other forms of financial blah blah blah blah blah. And then the other one is the one hundred hour rule as well.
If you can give us an assessment on what that would do and how much would that cost if that were to happen, I would appreciate that too. Again, we can debrief in terms of what I really want. That will help you with any further details that you may need. Okay. Any additional questions on this item?
Okay. I wanna thank this committee so very much. Again, we don't wanna lose ground on homelessness. It's time that we plug the hole when it comes to our social safety net, and this committee is determined to do so. So thank you very much.
Thank you for what you do. Appreciate it.
Speaker 1
Now we'll go on to, issue number eight, our immigrant services programs. Take your seats. Take your seats.
Speaker 2
Thank you, chair Jackson. Jen Troya on behalf of CDSS. Our department administers $75,000,000 in state general funds annually for immigration services across California as well as other one time initiatives. We allocate these funds regionally based on the immigrant and undocumented populations and based on geographic regions. In recent years, we've also received additional time limited funding on top of these ongoing allocations.
Taken together, these investments reflect the state's commitment to supporting inclusion, integration, and economic mobility for foreign born Californians. We recognize that California's immigrant communities enrich our social fabric and strengthen our state and local economies. Roughly 27% of Californians, about 10,500,000 people are foreign born, and almost half of California's children have an immigrant parent. Our programs provide a wide range of immigration services, including community education and outreach on available benefits and individuals' rights, direct legal assistance such as consultations, application preparation, and legal representation in administrative and court proceedings. These services are provided by more than 150 nonprofit legal service part providers who deliver pro bono immigration legal services and community education and outreach.
Additionally, we fund technical assistance for our legal services providers to ensure they have the most current information on immigration law and policy and to help develop innovative strategies to serve hard to reach populations. Every year, our funding helps hundreds of thousands of immigrants access critical immigration protections such as DACA benefits, work permits, asylum, and US citizenship. Annually, our programs serve about 400,000 clients per year with direct service legal direct legal service assistance. To answer more specific agenda questions on the recent investments and efforts to increase capacity, I will now turn it over to the director of our office of equity.
Speaker 17
Thank you, director Troye, and good evening, chair Jackson and members of the committee. My name is Eliana Kamowitz. Am the office of equity director at the California Department of Social Services. In terms of our recent investments as part of the state fiscal year twenty four twenty five special legislative session, our department received a supplemental $10,000,000 allocation that we utilize to fund select nonprofits providing immigration legal representation to youth and to develop a specialized program to fund legal representation for individuals in immigration detention. This fiscal year, the department received an additional $15,000,000 from the One California Immigration Services funding.
We use these funds to augment our removal defense funding to nonprofits representing individuals who are already in or facing removal proceedings. We also received $10,000,000 in funding to extend the Children's Holistic Immigration Representation Project that we, called CHIRP that was set to end this year for extending it to another year until June 2026. Sorry. It was it was set to end last year. The CHIRP program provides funding to a specialized network of immigration sorry.
Provides funding through a specialized network of immigration legal services nonprofits to provide integrated social and legal services to unaccompanied minors in California. As of January, which is the midpoint for the additional year of CHIRP services, the project has spent about $4,000,000, about 40% of their allocation. We are considering a no cost extension until next year to ensure that the program spends down all of its funds and clients continue to receive services. We, expect that all the other supplemental funding will be expended within the program service terms. I also want to address your question, on the agenda about underserved regions and the efforts that we have undertaken to increase nonprofit immigration legal service capacity, which we acknowledge still does not meet the demand for services.
The traditionally underserved regions for immigration services are the Central Valley, the Central Coast, and the Inland Empire. Many parts of these regions are legal deserts where community need is much greater than the number of available immigration service providers we can fund. Over the years, the department has designed and implemented targeted programs to build the capacity of legal service providers across the state. This includes, our project called the Immigration Legal Services Support and the Immigration Legal Fellowship Project, both aimed at expanding immigration services by increasing training opportunities for individuals to become accredited representatives or removal defense attorneys in underserved regions. Most recently, CDSS has awarded rural regions a 100% of their removal defense funding request, and we continue to work to connect these regions with providers in urban areas who may be able to assist their rural immigrant clients.
Together, all our immigration services investments reflect a clear priority, expanding access to high quality immigration legal services across every region of California. We look forward to partnering with the legislature as we continue to respond to the growing demand for services. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Good evening, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is Jackie Gonzalez, co executive director of immigrant defense advocates, and I'm here to urge the state to fund immigration legal services broadly and specifically to continue and expand to proven pilot investments, the Children's Holistic Immigration Representation Project, CHIRP, and the Immigration Legal Fellowship Project. The question before this committee and our state is how best to navigate the uncertainty and harm being caused by federal immigration policies. While the intensity has certainly increased, these challenges are not new.
Six years ago, under the first Trump administration, I stood before this same committee to help pitch the fellowship, the first state sponsored program to increase removal defense representation for our residents. At its core was a very simple premise. Access to due process and quality legal defense should not depend on income or ZIP code. The fellowship represents the kind of strategic investment California must continue to make, not only funding services, but building lasting legal infrastructure. As you've seen over the last year, immigrants remain vulnerable to arbitrary arrests, inhumane detention, and deportation without due process.
Immigration law is one of the most complex and rapidly changing areas of law, yet individuals are not guaranteed counsel even when the consequences include family separation, prolonged detention, and exile. The need is especially urgent in underserved parts of our communities that have long been legal deserts, areas with high concentrations of immigrants, aggressive immigration enforcement, and now expanding detention centers. We cannot treat legal services as a patchwork of emergency responses. We need durable capacity, trained providers, and a pipeline of expertise in places that have been left behind. That is exactly what the fellowship has begun to build.
Since 2021, the fellowship has supported collaboration across the state with experienced immigration attorneys mentoring lawyers in remote areas. It has expanded workforce opportunities, strengthened reputable legal service organizations, and helped counter immigration fraud and notario abuse. 19 fellows hosted across 13 organizations in the Central Valley, Central Coast, and the Inland Empire have provided over 2,400 legal services in 39 counties in our state. All of the organizations that have participated in the first round of the fellowship are now eligible for removal defense funding. This is how we build equity in our state.
70% of the fellows have successfully transitioned into full time immigration or public interest attorney roles in their communities. This is the kind of impact that is possible when California invests in people and institutions, not short term fixes. The second program I bring before you today is CHIRP, equally essential. CHIRP was a state pilot created by California to meet a specific and urgent need again under the first Trump administration, protecting unaccompanied immigrant children through legal and social services. And just like the fellowship, it has succeeded.
Since 2022, CHIP has provided legal representation to nearly 1,200 children along with case management, support for education, mental health, medical care, food access, and housing. Advocates are seeking to fund funding to maintain the program for another year and expand capacity as we are at risk of losing representation due to the termination of federal contracts. CHIRP should be hailed as a model of success, indeed, as a standard for how governments should protect children. It is a shame to let a state pilot built with this level of success stall because of shortsighted budgeting, especially when the need is so dire. As raids tear apart our communities, the number of unaccompanied children is only increasing.
During Trump one point o, the harm done to these children was headline news, and now it's often buried because what we are seeing is so horrific that we don't even have time to get to what is happening to these children. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to children being harmed, detained, and pushed through the system without protection. Over Labor Day weekend last year, the federal government removed dozens of children from shelters and attempted to deport hundreds of others without notifying their guardians. Were it not for providers like CHIP, many of these children would have been deported in the dark of night. CHIP providers stepped in, not only in immigration court, but in federal court, challenging these violations and protecting the rights of California children and, in doing so, children nationwide.
There is no clear alternative to CHIP. Leaving kids to navigate the system alone is not a plan. It's harmful. It's immoral, it's contrary to who we are as a state. Cutting either CHIP or the fellowship now would be fiscally shortsighted, saving dollars while creating cost tomorrow in family destabilization, strain on schools and services, and preventable harm.
So I ask you to fund immigration legal services broadly and meet the reality of the need, protect, chirp, and representation for children as a baseline commitment, not a discretionary add on, and continue and expand the fellowship as a legal capacity building strategy so California can meet the years ahead with preparedness, not panic. Thank you.
Speaker 34
chairman Jackson and subcommittee. My name is Luka Gallegos, executive director of
Speaker 1
This is my one of my bosses, y'all, from the district. I just wanna let y'all know this is a reelection year. I wanna make sure that she knows she's my boss. You may begin.
Speaker 34
Thank you, doctor. Grassroots organization, based at based born and raised and rooted in the Inland Empire in the Coachella Valley. We are losing one of California's most valuable assets, our workforce. Farm workers and immigrant families are essential to the health of our state, yet too many are being pushed to the brink without economic stability and access. I'm here to uplift the voices and stories of our Inland Empire most vulnerable community to educate and inform so together we can create solutions that reflect the most pressing needs of the population that just wants to work.
To make sure that our families are housed, safe, and fed. I want to thank the mother that for allowing me to share her following story. We are creating a consciousness in the name of
Speaker 34
picture that I share with you is a picture of a 12 year old young girl that committed suicide. The mother called Todec's 247 hotline to seek financial support to help pay for her 12 year old daughter's funeral. I had the opportunity to meet with the mother in person who shared her story. She shared that her daughter was getting bullied at school. She was being called a wetback.
The mother shared that quickly, she addressed the situation with the school. She shared that weeks later, she noticed she started noticing her daughter's anxiousness, not sleeping, not eating, and losing weight. The mother took her to the clinic where they ran blood work and vitals. The results came back normal. The doctor told the mother that the that the daughter was going through puberty and that she was healthy.
Weeks later, the mother comes home from work looking for her daughter, and she found her her daughter hanging from her closet. The daughter left the letter behind. The mother allowed me to read the letter. Among all the all that the young girl wrote, what stayed with me was the daughter's telling was the daughter telling her mother that no one was going to call her a wetback again. You will have one less mouth to feed to save money in case immigration gets you.
I promised the mom that in the name of her daughter and that every time I had the opportunity, I would share her story to create awareness. The pain, trauma, persecution, and instability of our families and what they're facing is why this moment demands the state treat it as it is, a community pandemic. During the COVID pandemic, the remedy was the vaccine. During this community pandemic, our vulnerable essential workers and their families need access to legal representation, mental health, and human services. If we do not have a strong, healthy, and present workforce, we will not have a strong and healthy economy.
If you ask any of our workers what's on their minds, they'll tell you. We just want to work. We are not criminals. The path forward requires urgency, empathy, and action. We must shift towards protection and prevention because community's well-being is not optional.
Thank you for your for this opportunity.
Speaker 23
Thank you so much for sharing that story with us today. It's really difficult to follow that, Luz. Thank you. Hello, chair Jackson, doctor Jackson, honorable members, and staff. My name is Bruno with the California Immigrant Policy Center.
The One California and CDSS's immigration programs provide legal services to tens of thousands of Californians' children and families every single year and provide serve as a safety net for Californians' immigrant families currently under attack by our own federal government. In 2025, CIPC, a 140 of our partner organizations, Assembly Mervonta, and Senator Duraso secured 25,000,000 in additional one time state funding for deportation defense services, expanding legal services for thousands of children, families, and neighbors detained by ICE and facing deportation alone. This funding was through the Youth Legal Services Program, Removal Defense Program, and the detained representation project that CDSS so graciously shared. These one time augmentations helped establish this detained representation project serving Californians who are detained by ICE and nearly doubled the impact of the Removal Defense Program and the Youth Legal Services Program. Additional funding of 40,000,000 in fiscal year twenty six twenty seven, is needed to sustain and expand legal services for Californians facing escalated and violent federal immigration enforcement actions.
Since June, federal agents have arrested more than 10,000 Californians during indiscriminate raids on our public streets, at our work sites, and in our neighborhoods across Southern California and the Central Coast, typically without identification, without valid warrants, judicial warrants, or regard for our constitutional rights. These are just the raids. Thousands of Californians have been arrested by ICE in, arrest all across the state. As of January, ICE has detained more than 5,000 Californians in for profit private detention facilities, facilities that the California Department of Justice has inspected and documented as dangerous and unsafe. More than 30% of our family members and our neighbors who are detained by ICE in these for profit facilities that are dangerous do not have access to a lawyer to help them fight for their freedom and defend their basic due process rights.
These actions by our federal government undermine due process, threaten our public safety, and destabilize our local economies, schools, communities, and our families. Additional funding is needed to sustain and increase legal services to defend the basic safety and rights civil rights of Californians against a rogue, lawless administration. These programs are on the front lines defending the rights of Californians. A few stories that I wanna share. One legal service provider, their clients' removal defense, sixty percent of their clients are survivors of domestic violence.
One provider serving veterans detained by ICE without legal counsel. Another provider, two parents arrested by ICE while driving their three US citizen children to school in the Inland Empire and detained for three months without their children. A single mother of three children in San Diego who are survivors of violence and trafficking. Indigenous mother and farm worker detained during the horrific glass how rate glasshouse raid in the Central Valley. These are the the stories, one of many, thousands of stories these programs are serving every single day.
These legal services are a lifeline for California families. As the federal government escalates mass raids and deportations with a 170,000,000,000 of our federal tax dollars, legal representation is the most important safeguard against unlawful detention, permanent family separation, and constitutional violations. CIPC, Assemblyman Robonta, Senator Duraso, and a 135 of our coalition partners are respectively requesting a 40,000,000 increase for vital programs providing life saving legal defense and services for Californians, protecting their basic rights, keeping families together and safe, and ensuring stability and security for all Californians. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Thank you, chair. Members, Juwan Charter, legislative analyst office. We have nothing further to add at this time.
Speaker 4
Lourdes Morales, Department of Finance. Nothing further to add at this point.
Speaker 1
I want to acknowledge assembly member Liz Artega who's, joined us here as one of the vice chairs of the Latino Caucus. Welcome. Are there any questions or comments at this time? Assembly member Ortega.
Speaker 25
Well, first, first of all, thank you, chair, for, allowing me to come today. I wanna thank our presenters for their powerful words. May I ask the name of the the young girl?
Speaker 25
to I understand. Okay. The reason I asked her name is because, you know, stories like her aren't making the headlines. We're seeing right now that we are in a state of emergency across this country, and people are dying. People are being murdered by this federal government.
And it is as a state, as the fourth largest economy in the world, as a state that contributes, to making this nation what it is, we need to act like it and make sure that we have the resources available to continue to protect every Californian. We need to act like the golden state that we are and that that contributes to the nation. And that means ensuring that we have the resources available to protect all Californians. As we've seen with many of the cases, it's no longer just immigrants. We know that it's not just about going after, quote, criminals.
I mean, think about this. Think about if I'm a criminal, why would I walk into a federal building voluntarily, go through security, ask to for a a number, sit in the waiting room, and ask to be seen just to be detained and then disappeared. Unfortunately, that is what's happening today. That is what's happening across these, courtrooms where we all heard about baby Liam. Unfortunately, there's more baby Liams out there They need legal representation.
They cannot represent themselves. And so I wanted to come today to say thank you, but to also ask a few questions, as we move forward with our budget process and allocating of resources. As you can understand, we do have a lot of demands, for, you know, limited resources. So I wanted to ask some of the providers. Can you give me some examples of the the capacity or the increased number of demand that you have you are now facing, due to, you know, the terrorizing of our communities?
If if I may, to the chair.
Speaker 34
For us, just to give you a snapshot, our organization usually serves a 150,000 a year. Last year, that that a number, increased to to over 250,000, reaching over 250,000 in the largest in the Inland Empire, which is a very one of our largest counties here in the in the state of California. And as you were talking, you know, we're talking about rural areas like the Inland Empire that you are seeing when you ask why didn't these stories, get get to the news because of where we are. The Inland, we don't have access to the news. We don't have access like LA and all the other counties where these stories and these situations are really impacting, and they're happening on the daily basis.
Our you know, and as an organization that's used to responding without resources, right now, we have more volunteers than resources. Unfortunately, the demand continues to grow, and we and and these stories continue to happen because this is not the first suicide. Our community's mental health is shot, and they're not thinking. They're not thinking of of they're not they're thinking of survival. They're not thinking of prevention.
They're thinking of making sure they're housed, but when they're if they get caught up with immigration, they're trying to find attorneys. They're trying to front pro bonos. And that's why this this this ask is just so important, especially for regions like the Inland Empire.
Speaker 25
Thank you. And, what's currently in the in the budget, do you see it as enough to meet your current needs?
Speaker 22
I just to be clear, I am a former immigration attorney. I'm no longer on the ground, but I am representing a lot of the programs being advocated for. And I would just like to name a few changes that I think are deeply impacting, the ability to meet the need. One, in particular, for deportation cases is that because of a change in, the federal government's interpretation of how people are classified as either arriving aliens it's an awful term, but it's it's what's in the code. They've taken a position that if someone is an arriving alien, they're no longer eligible for bond and must remain detained indefinitely.
That is an interpretation that has never been put forward. And what it means practically is that now when someone is detained in the numbers that we're seeing, those are people, as you rightly pointed out, that are just trying to go through a process in the system. That is a person that could have just been released even if they had interaction with immigration or released on a $1,500 bond or a $5,000 bond, and now that person is indefinitely detained. And the only way to get that person out of immigration detention is a habeas petition, which is going to federal court for an immigration attorney. I can say I practiced for ten years representing people in detention.
I never once had to file a habeas to get a client out of detention. We are dealing with truly unprecedented times. So we are now trying to fund immigration attorneys at levels beyond what is known, and these immigration attorneys now need to also be like federal defenders in a court of law they don't practice in. If if we're talking about children, although there is not a right to counsel in immigration, the federal government has historically funded the representation for children. Just like every other program that is being discussed today, the funding for that is on a three month cycle.
No one can run a program or represent children on three month cycles. And for California, which is one of the largest, if if not the largest, state with unaccompanied children, that's a really significant problem for us and the number of children that are now left without any support or legal services from the federal government. Here in California, the ask for CHIRP is in part because there's an estimate of at least 4,000 children who will lose representation, if the federal government contracts are cut.
Speaker 23
Thank you, assembly member Tariga, for your leadership and your questions and engagement. And, yeah, to your question about the budget ask, we have a lot of partners who are really on the ground providing, like, Luz had mentioned and Jackie, providing legal services every single day to children and families detained. We had over 50 comments submitted to this committee from over 27 partners across the state who couldn't travel today. You'll hear from public comments from our partners today. These are organizations who need additional funding to continue providing services for children and families because as my colleagues have mentioned, right, the federal government has over a 170,000,000,000 of our federal tax dollars.
HR one slashed a trillion dollars of health care and food assistance, gave it to the billionaires, and also to DHS, a 170,000,000,000 to expand detention and deportation. And so what we're seeing now, just like Jackie mentioned, unprecedented unprecedented need, but also unprecedented action. Right? There's so many folks, volunteers, attorneys, law students, legal service providers who are beefing up and strengthening the infrastructure. And with additional state investments, that infrastructure could be sustained, strengthened, and expanded.
Speaker 1
So just so that we're clear, the ask for One California is what? 40,000,000 for
Speaker 1
15. Okay. And what do we anticipate the need for, those that need areas, regions that need continued infrastructure building?
Speaker 22
Well, I'll let my colleague, Luz, if there's something she would like to share. But for the fellowship, which is the the project we're talking about, it's a $7,500,000 project for three years, so it's an estimated 2,500,000.0 per year to keep running that program to train attorneys in underserved regions.
Speaker 22
It's historically covered the Central Coast, Central Valley, and the Inland Empire, but the goal of that fellowship is to serve rural and underserved regions. And so it certainly doesn't have to be limited to those regions. That's where it has historically operated. But if CDSS would like to weigh in, I I give it over to them.
Speaker 17
We recently expanded some of the cohorts, to different parts of the Northern Central Coast. We've been expanding in all of the what I mentioned is underserved regions and trying to add additional attorneys. The initial focus was the Central Valley and, of course, the Inland Empire, and I think the Central Coast is the most recent addition. And even the Central Coast has a northern and southern part that are difficult to access for attorneys.
Speaker 22
I I will share, chair Jackson, just for your understanding that there there's there's a really awful combination geographically in our state of where enforcement happens, where there are no attorneys, and where the detention centers that immigrants are taken to are located, and it's by design. So, we have detention centers in the southern part of the state. We have a detention center in San Bernardino County, Adelanto, which is notorious, and then we have several others in the Central Valley region. And the largest detention center in our state was just opened in California City, also in the Central Valley. So it's not just that these regions are legal deserts.
It's also legal deserts where people are, like, rotting in these inhumane detention centers. And the more that you increase capacity in those regions and you leverage the expertise of people from the Bay, people from LA, and they can partner together in order to serve that population, you are really making the dollars go further. The habeas point I mentioned earlier, there was a fellow who represented someone in a bond hearing. They got the person a bond, and then the person couldn't get out of detention because they denied bond based on the logic I just shared of them being an arriving alien. The person that was mentoring them, the attorney that was mentoring them, an expert, a very experienced immigration attorney filed a habeas petition together with the fellow, and that person got out of detention and went back home to their family.
So this is the kind of collaboration that is possible when you build programs, right, that really leverage expertise and try to account for the vast expanse that is our state.
Speaker 1
Thank you for that. Anyone else have anything to share with this committee? I just wanna say that we hear you. We recognize it as a priority, and, we're gonna do everything that we can, to make sure that people's basic human rights, are protected. One thing that the founding fathers knew understood, actually, is that as soon as you step foot in America, you have rights, and you are entitled to a certain due process, so much so that John Adams himself made sure that people had a representation that he didn't even agree with.
But he thought it was important to set the example, right, that everyone is entitled to legal representation. So we're gonna do the best that we can. We understand that there's regions where we need more infrastructure as well. I have heard it loud and clear from my colleagues that she she expects some stuff to happen. And because I'm scared of her, I'm gonna do everything that I can to to make that happen.
So thank you all very much for what you do, meeting this time in history, and making sure that California lives up to its name. Thank you all very much.
Speaker 1
We will leave this item open, and we'll continue to look for additional information in terms of budgetary needs as well. Now we'll go to issue number nine. Oh, man. We're at our last one.
Speaker 1
And this is in regards to the guaranteed income program. And so, CDSS, you may begin when you're ready.
Speaker 5
Sure. So, again, Alexis Fernandez Garcia with the Department of Social Services. All seven of the CDSS funded guaranteed income pilot programs for former foster youth and pregnant people have completed enrollment, offering payments of 600 to $1,200 per month for twelve to eighteen months to nearly 2,000 individuals. Payments will conclude by May 2026. Evaluation activities are currently underway and include focus groups, a baseline survey, a midpoint survey, and an exit survey, as well as a post exit survey.
And to clarify, there were some questions around the timelines for evaluation. This final evaluation report for the, guaranteed income pilot for former foster youth and pregnant people is anticipated to be released in 2028. Preliminary analysis indicate that individuals receiving guaranteed income are significantly less likely to have experienced homelessness or, couch surfed in the past twelve months. They were less likely to be always or often stressed out about paying bills and had a more positive assessment of their current and future well-being. Their perceived stress was significantly lower than the control group, and they reported fewer poor mental health days in the last month.
Participants in early focus groups reported expectations that guaranteed income would help them secure housing, pay down debts, build savings, or be better parents. Participants were grateful for the lack of burden associated from the program or with the program from application to eligibility determinations to not needing to verify or certify eligibility on an ongoing basis. Pregnant participants often spoke about the ability to spend more time with their baby or take better care of themselves during pregnancy. Pilot staff who reached out personally to folks were more likely to be successful with recruitment and engagement, but some applicants did require staff making multiple attempts to finish the process. Later, focus group participants shared that disruptive life events, such as the experience of homelessness or reduced work hours, got in the way of some of their goals, though the income did provide stability in those times.
Regarding the guaranteed income pilot for low income older adults, the the second round, for the pilot program, the CDSS released a competitive request for applications and selected give directly in partnership with the San Joaquin County Housing Authority to administer the pilot program. GiveDirectly will provide 240 individuals with guaranteed income payments of $1,200 per month for twelve months, and enrollment is anticipated to begin by summer twenty twenty six. GIV directly selected the housing initiative at the University of Pennsylvania as their evaluator. And the evaluation for this pilot program, which is distinct from the evaluation I just mentioned, is now expected by early twenty twenty nine, which is a year, ahead of our original, timeline and reflects the benefit issuance schedule for this separate effort. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Obviously, it's, good news to hear that we'll get, beginning the report, sooner, than anticipated. Obviously, what I heard you say is that an interim report could be available as soon as 2028.
Speaker 5
So the report that is scheduled to be available in 2028 is for the original pilot program
Speaker 5
yes, we're looking to see if we can issue something in the interim, but the full evaluation with all the results of the exit survey won't be done till 2028. We won't have completed all those steps.
Speaker 1
Right. And I know the senior one is on a different timeline, which is totally understandable and my fault. So the reason why we keep this as an item because, as you know, it's more costly to rebuild infrastructure than it is to keep it going in many cases. And so we wanna make sure that we are learning from best practices, allow the legislature to internalize that, and, of course, make sure it's available for the next administration as well so that we can make decisions on what a permanent program would look like if resources are available to do so. And so we wanna make sure that we also let the public know we don't we're not forgetting about it.
And I do consider this as a important component of a twenty first century social safety net where we can make sure that people are able to, have a baseline of support so that they can be stable Mhmm. Keep them stable, and then they can chart their path to, their pathway to be able to thrive as well. And so, all the other reports from around the world, I've read many of them, Very promising. I anticipate this being just as promising, as well. But we wanna make sure that we have as much information as possible as soon as possible so that we can then make sure that we're charting a path forward.
Okay?
Speaker 1
Thank you so very much, and we're looking forward to the first report in 2028. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
we will keep this hold this, item open and, be able to move to public comment if we don't have any request to hear issues on non presentation issues, public searing hearing none and seeing the mad dash to the mic. This ends the panel presentation portion of our hearing for today. And with that, we will move to public comment again. We want to hold public comment to one minute each. If you have come with a, I would say, prewritten public comments and you know that it's going to last more than one minute, I would think right now, what do I really need to say?
I know what the chair believes in. Do I have to read the whole thing? Now some of you have a mind that says, I know what the chair says, but my mind won't let me do that. I have to read the whole thing. So with that, prepare to get the stank eye because I know you can't help it anyway.
Okay? But please stay for additional help we can provide you to get over that. Alright? So please, name and affiliation, please.
Speaker 4
Hi. Thank you, chairman. I'll keep it short. My name is Judith Gutierrez. I'm with the American Heart Association, and we just politely ask that we, that the legislature prioritize a $100,000,000 one time funding in the state budget for the CalFresh fruit and vegetable supplemental benefits program.
So thank you for your time.
Speaker 33
Yesenia Robancho with N Child Poverty California. We urge you to beat back any federal cuts with courage and urge you not to mirror federal cuts at the state level with inaction. California must act so millions of families don't go hungry from not having access to CalFresh regardless of their status and regardless of federal exclusions. We also urge you to adequately support county eligibility workforce as they are lifelines to families and workers are essentially being forced to implement these cruel changes that they have no say on. We stand in solidarity with our immigrant rights advocates at the front lines and urge you to sufficiently fund legal services.
And lastly, we urge you and thank you for your solidarity on pushing for progressive revenues so no child must go hungry in our state, so none of our arbolos die because of hunger, so families aren't forced to live in in in in the streets in the fourth largest economy in the world. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Darby Kernan on behalf of In Child Poverty California. In the past, California has invested in our cradle to career and promised neighborhoods who are on the ground providing support to the families that receive all the services that were discussed today. These place based initiatives need to be part of our solutions for helping our families maintain key services and support. We are asking for 17,500,000.0 to fund this program and continue the support on the ground. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Nicole Wortleman, behalf of the Children's Partnership, here to respectfully urge you to protect the $75,000,000 annual allocation for immigrant legal services programs and to increase funding for deportation defense services by $50,000,000 in the 2026 state budget. Access to legal representation is one of the strongest protections we can provide. Children with attorneys are significantly more likely to remain with their families and access lawful relief. This is fundamentally about children. When immigration enforcement actions escalate, it is children who experience the trauma.
We respectfully ask for your support.
Speaker 36
Hi. Good evening. Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. I wanna echo the comments of my colleague, Keely O'Brien, on the need to fight back against h r one cuts to food benefits. Also wanna support the need to fund emergency food banks and cow food funding, and increased hunger in our communities will face because of h r one cannot be overstated.
On CalWORKS, we the state has made tremendous progress with reimagining CalWORKS and making the program to be more anti racist, trauma informed, and family centered. The state could build on this by eliminating sanctions that decrease cash assistance to families and penalize families instead of providing supports. CalWORKS really has a potential to empower families to choose their pathways out of poverty such as removing old laws, mentioned on our books, such as eliminating the one hundred hour rule, which was, mentioned by assembly member Sharp Collins, and the getting rid of the unrelated adult males laws off our books. We also strongly support the legal services programs that were talked about in the immigration services area and also continuing to evaluate guaranteed income and the help that it could do.
Speaker 26
Hi. Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties. HR one really represents a fundamental shift of fiscal responsibility for safety net programs from the federal government to the state and counties. Counties are concerned that the proposed budget does not adequately address the county resources that will be needed, and and CSAC seeks a partnership with the legislature and the administration on the resources needed for implementation, which is really a structural part of the state's budget. Along with our county partners, CSAC recently put out a fiscal estimate showing that counties are facing increased costs ranging from 6 to 9,500,000,000.0, at full implementation, and that CalFresh impacts discussed today on counties are a key part of that, overall fiscal estimate.
CalFresh County eligibility work is essential to helping vulnerable individuals and families maintain essential benefits, especially at this time when there's so much risk of lost assistance. And there'll be a really significant, increased workload that was discussed today to help, individuals and families obtain and maintain this nutrition assistance. And so we just advocate that it for investments in the county eligibility workforce for it to be funded at the level needed as well as for the, CalFresh match waiver that was discussed will be critical as well. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Good afternoon. My name is Manuel Pasaragim with the California Immigrant Policy Center and also here on behalf of Chile and, Chinese for Affirmative Action. We urge the legislature to support the governor's proposal to maintain the $75,000,000 annual allocation for immigration legal services programs and urge legislature to invest an additional $40,000,000 for deportation defense in this year's state budget. I bring this short anecdote from San Bernardino Community Services Center. Anna and Vanessa are two sisters who, as minors, fled their home country to reunite with their grandmother in California after losing both parents in Mexico.
We helped reunite the two minors with their grandmother who is now their legal guardian. Anna is a straight a student and dreams of attending college while she and her sister Vanessa are safe, secure, and stable. Stories like these are only possible with the continuous support of CDSS immigration programs. Legal services are now are not only keeping families together, but they open pathways to economics opportunities, stability, and security. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Good afternoon. I'm Aneelie Martin, also with the California Immigrant Policy Center and a proud colead of the Food For All Coalition. We urge the legislature to protect the expansion of the California food assistance program to in October 2027 to all income eligible individuals 55 regardless of immigration status. We also urge the legislature to prevent a hunger clip by restoring benefits to 72,000 humanitarian immigrants who are losing access to CalFresh in April due to HR one. We need a permanent solution that addresses a long standing issue of food insecurity in in immigrant communities.
That is only getting worse as federal attacks and violence towards immigrants leaves communities more food insecure and less able to secure life sustaining resources than they were before. California must commit to immigration inclusion in our most powerful antipoverty programs. We need an equitable food safety net now. No exceptions, no exclusions, and no delays. Thank you.
Speaker 37
Usama Mukhladdam with the California chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations. We echo our partners and as an organization that's on the front lines providing free legal services to California's most vulnerable immigrant communities, not just Muslim communities, but across all of California's diverse communities. We echo our partners and urge you to protect the $75,000,000 baseline for immigration legal services and appropriate a $40,000,000 increase for deportation defense. We also ask that you protect the California Immigrant Justice Fellowship to sustain legal capacity in hard to reach regions that severe severely lack representation. Our attorneys have been up and down the state over the past several months trying to fill the the need to serve the various families that have been subject to these ICE raids and illegal detentions.
These legal services are not they are essential, and they cannot operate in a vacuum. As discussed in issues one and three, federal h r one policies threaten to strip food benefits from hundreds of thousands, and combined with the looming health for all funding cliff, our communities are under attack from all sides. So we urge you to continue the necessary work to backfill these cuts and protect our communities and workforce. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Kelly Brooks on behalf of the urban counties of California and the boards of supervisors of Santa Clara, Riverside, and Ventura Counties. We are deeply concerned with the multifaceted impacts of h r one on counties and the vulnerable communities we serve. HR one represents a fundamental restructuring of the federal state county partnership for safety net services with consequences that counties cannot absorb without significant mitigation. We support CWD and SEIU's proposed CalFresh investments to ensure Californians continue to have access to lifesaving food benefits. Additionally, on behalf of the California Association of Diaper Banks, we are here again asking for the legislature to extend the funding for California's diaper banks network to provide free diapers to low income families in need.
Through state support over the last seven years, they have distributed over 200,000,000 diapers to millions of infants and families. We are grateful to assembly member Ortega and 24 of your colleagues for leading the effort to provide $16,500,000 to continue this program. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Thank you, mister chair. Kathy Sunderling McDonald, Katbird Strategies. I'm here for two clients. First, for the California Panethnic Health Network, I just want a plus one what the Food For All Coalition said. We couldn't say it better and support that ask.
Second, on behalf of Truev, a consumer driven income verification platform that was mentioned during the conversation around, automation and improvements that can be made. Truev is pleased to be working with CDSS and look forward to working with you, with advocates, with counties, and, of course, with our IT partners to make sure that we can help mitigate the impacts of HR one and improve services to clients both at renewal, at application, and when they need to make reports under the HR one requirements. Thank you.
Speaker 40
Danielle Bautista with United Ways of California, the state association of 27 local United Ways throughout the state. We urge the legislature to protect and ensure all eligible California families, especially our most vulnerable communities vulnerable targeted communities, can continue accessing critical food assistance benefits like CalFresh. According to our real cost measure study, over one in three California families already do not earn enough income to make ends meet, and further cuts will force families to skip meals and go hungry. The state must do all it can to mitigate harm from federal cuts. And as the the world's fourth largest economy, California has the means to protect its most vulnerable communities.
We urge the legislature to ensure that the California state's budget is not balanced on the backs of our most vulnerable communities. We thank you for your leadership and look forward to working with you and the committee and legislature on this. Thank you so much.
Speaker 41
Dear Terran members, my name is Frances Davila, and I'm with the Acacia Center for Justice. I'm here to express strong support for their immigration council access pilot program. Unrepresented immigrants face an impossible task navigating immigration court. Immigration proceedings can determine whether someone is permanently separated from their family or returned to danger, yet there's no right to appointed counsel. I've been an immigrant rights advocate for twenty years and immigration attorney for ten.
I've seen hundreds of immigrant families separated simply because they face the immigration system alone. Recent federal policy shifts have made the situation even more urgent. Many immigrants have lost access to bond hearings and are languishing in detention where they've been denied access to counsel, their families, and medical care. Immigration attorneys must now be fluent in federal court practice because a habeas corpus petition is the only way to get immigrants out of detention. California can make smart targeted investments such as this program.
It places attorney leads in high need courts to provide legal consultation to unrepresented immigrants, connects them to long term legal support, and builds a network of habeas experts to secure the release of immigrants in detention. I ask for your support to invest $5,000,000 in the immigration council access pilot program as well as CHIP, the California Immigration Legal Fellowship, and Deportation Defense Legal Services. Thank you.
Speaker 42
My name is Laura Meuther with the Lutheran Office of Public Policy California. I am a member of the End Child Poverty and Food for All Coalitions in California. In the wake of harmful federal actions, I call upon the legislature to prioritize restoring benefits to more than 600,000 CalFresh households that are at risk of losing food assistance due to h r one. Food for all is also an urgent issue as another 74,000 humanitarian immigrants are set to lose access to CalFresh in April 2026. We continue to urge additional investments to ensure Californians of all ages, regardless of immigration status, can access critical food benefits.
Speaker 1
Good job. You read that and made your time. Girl, I was worried there. I didn't know if you were gonna make it. Okay.
Name and affiliation, please.
Speaker 43
Good evening. Ortencio Rodriguez. I'm with the Acacia Center for Justice. I'm here to express strong support in favor of protecting and expanding all the immigration legal services investments we've heard about today, but will use my time to highlight the Children's Holistic Immigration Representation Project, also known as CHIP. As you heard earlier today, unaccompanied children face unique hardships.
They have experienced trauma, school interruption, housing instability, and more all while navigating a very complex immigration system alone. CHIRP is a vital bridge. Every child represented under this program is assigned an attorney as well as a social worker or a caseworker for the entirety of their case. So these powerhouse teams under CHIRP have successfully helped children avoid homelessness, mitigate labor trafficking risks, and strengthen their relationships with their caregivers. They are often the only trusted adults in the child's life.
Despite it being highlighted as a national model, unfortunately, this program is on the chopping block. It's been serving children since 2022, and we hope that we can reinstate it again for another year. I ask that the state commit to continued reinvestments for CHIP and its critical services as well as to all the lifesaving immigration legal services that are keeping families together and safely out of detention. Thank you.
Speaker 44
Hello. My name is Amber Ward. I'm with Opening Doors, and we offer legal services via the RD grant as well as CHIRP. So we know firsthand how important and vital these services are. And I'm just coming to support, the $75,000,000 baseline, immigration support as well as an additional 40,000,000 in removal defense, and thank you for your time.
Speaker 1
Take take your take your time. You we have the same issue. You know, we just weren't born that way. You know? Yeah.
Speaker 45
Yes. Good evening. My name is Michelle Lee with National California. We heard from a lot of folks today about the harm that families are going to face and are facing due to h r one and other harsh federal actions. I urge you to commit to mitigating this harm and additionally continue to invest in successful programs that strengthen our safety net like the CalFresh fruit and vegetable EBT program.
This is especially important now because we know that people are still struggling and CalFresh benefits often don't last participants the full month. While the Trump administration wields hunger as a weapon throughout the country, we can take a different path forward to ensure that all Californians can thrive. We want CalFresh participants to be able to return to the strongest safety net possible, and we can't pull back on the progress that we've made so far. And, additionally, Nurse California is in full support of all the immigrant legal services proposals to stabilize California immigrant communities and protect them. Thank you.
Speaker 19
the California Retailers Association representing grocery stores all throughout the state from large chains to independent grocers. We echo the sentiment of everyone here. CalFresh benefits are very pivotal to the economy of California, especially within our grocery community. But I would also ask that this, subcommittee also take into consideration, what happens again in case of another federal shutdown and individuals do not get their benefits during those shutdowns like what happened last year. I've heard from many grocery operators that of the four days that they didn't that shoppers didn't go into their stores, a lot of the mom and pop are still suffering from those economic losses.
So I would consider I I would recommend that this subcommittee also look into try to mitigate that in case another federal shutdown with this unpredictable administration. I know assembly member Solace has a contingency fund bill which, would provide benefits in the event of another federal shutdown that California would take on that financial burden. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for bringing that up. Let's let's double back on that. Okay? Okay. Come come see me.
Speaker 46
Good evening, doctor Jackson, members, staff. Noette Bottomo with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. We are an immigration legal services provider, so we appreciate the 75,000,000 in the budget that's being maintained. We also request for the additional funding for deportation defense for continuation of CHIP, for the immigration fellowship, and also for the new pilot proposed program, which is called the hold on a minute. Immigration Council Access Pilot Program.
And finally, we also support the food assistance programs, for food banks, CalFresh, and CFAP 55 and over as a priority need for our farm worker community's need. Thank you very much.
Speaker 48
Hey, doctor Jackson. Greg Herner on behalf of two one one San Diego and the 378,000 people on CalFresh benefits in San Diego County, a third of which are children. One, just wanna acknowledge your comments and the committee's comments and then appreciate them very much. I know you're working very hard on this. We're cosponsors with the California Association of Food Banks for the, maintaining CalFresh and CalFresh outreach.
And two one one San Diego was also the prime for eight other subcontractors throughout the state, to be able to maintain that CalFresh outreach. Thank you.
Speaker 49
Thank you, chair members. Chris Straughan with Capital Axi on behalf of the San Diego Food Bank, urging the legislature to approve ongoing funding, for CalFood, the $60,000,000 ongoing, funding as well as a onetime $50,000,000 allocation to address federal cuts to CalFresh as a result to HR one. In addition, we'd like to support the $16,500,000, allocation to, the California Diaper Bank program, which has been integral to providing diapers to low income people, including the it has allowed the distribution of 204,500,000 diapers to 2,700,000 children. We thank the legislature for the work you've done thus far, and, we hope that you approve these two items of funding. Thank you.
Speaker 50
Honorable chair members, Cameron Sisai with the California Immigrant Policy Center and today speaking on behalf of the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center to support the governor's proposal to maintain its $75,000,000 annual allocation for California's immigration legal services program and ask the state increase funding for deportation defense services by $50,000,000 in the fiscal year twenty six twenty seven state budget. The following is a testimony from Thuy Doe. Despite surviving war and genocide or a children of survivors, many were building their lives and contributing to their communities, over 2,000 Southeast Asian Americans have been deported, and around 15,000 remain under final removal orders often for decades old convictions they have already served time for without a fair chance at rehabilitation. These services are essential to keeping families together and safe and, defending civil rights, every year across California. So we respectfully ask you, to increase the funding for immigrant legal legal services that thousands of California families rely on.
Thank you for your consideration and for your leadership.
Speaker 51
is Jessica Flores. I'm here on behalf of Services Immigrant Rights Education Network. CYREN is one of the few community based organizations to provide these crucial immigrant legal services in underserved communities in the Central Valley. I'm here thanking you for maintaining the 75,000,000 annual allocation in the governor's budget and ask that we increase the funding by $40,000,000 to support deportation defense services. I also want to note that one of the main consultations that CYREN does is removal defense consultations.
We have done over 180 from January 2025 to June 2025 alone, and I wanna note this fact that the single most determinant factor whether someone will win or lose their case is legal representation. This determines whether family stay together, children grow up with their parents in the home, whether our communities continue thriving and reflecting their diversity. So I ask that we continue funding these crucial services. I yield my time. Thank you.
Speaker 47
Good evening, chairs and chair members. My name is Lisette Silva. I'm a program manager at the Waterville Law Center serving immigrant families on the Central Coast. I'm here today to urge you to protect and continue the California Immigrant Justice Fellowship as an ongoing program in our community where we regularly meet families who are terrified because a loved one is facing detention immigration court, and they have nowhere to turn for legal help. For many, the nearest attorney who can take their case is hours away if any exist at all.
Without representation, families face separation simply because legal help isn't accessible where they live. The immigrant justice fellowship has been critical in changing that reality. It helps place trained, mentored attorneys directly into communities like ours, allowing local organizations to finally build the deportation defense capacity that last. We've seen how this model strengthens trust, improves outcomes, and gives families a real chance to stay together. Please continue to fellowship too so rural and coastal communities like Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Bernardino County are not left behind, and families can access justice close to home.
Thank you for your leadership and consideration.
Speaker 52
Good evening, chairman members. Kevin Buffalino, Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services. Our organization's in its fiftieth year, and we're currently serving more people than ever before. About 330,000 neighbors are coming to our food bank for assistance every month. That's 120% increase over prior to the pandemic.
And we've only been able to keep up with that demand because of the CalFood funding. If that were to go back to the baseline of $8,000,000 in next year's budget, our organization alone would lose about $2,000,000 in funding. We're able to provide, three meals for every dollars. We're looking at looking losing about 6,000,000 meals next year if we were to go back to that baseline. So we urge you to support the California Association of Food Bank's request for bringing that baseline for CalFood to $60,000,000 plus a onetime investment of $50,000,000 to help us get through the impacts of HR one.
We're also a diaper bank, so lifting up that proposal or that, budget request as well of $16,500,000, for California Association of Diaper Banks. Thank you.
Speaker 53
Good evening, honorable representatives. I'm Kimberly Wu from Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network, CYREN, which serves our immigrant refugee communities across the counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo, Fresno, and Madeira. We strongly support the governor's proposal to maintain the 75,000,000 annual allocation for California's immigration legal services program and won California's proposal to increase funding for deportation defense services by $40,000,000. I have loved ones who sought to immigrate for this land of opportunity. But last year, they were detained during the green card interviews.
With my relatives in in handcuffs, our former attorney offered to continue legal representation, but only for starting $5,000. This 5 k was a price of their freedom but was money we didn't have, and there's no constitutional right to an attorney in immigration proceedings. Thankfully, CYREN stepped up to represent us for free, but 68% of Californians facing deportation still do not have legal counsel. That's why I, as someone with impacted loved ones, drove all the way from San Mateo to urge California to secure and increase legal services annual funding. This increase will show as a chair uplifted today that our values are due process, dignity, and justice for all, ensuring all California families can have the same quality, free legal representation immigration proceedings that my family was fortunate to receive.
Thank you.
Speaker 53
I don't feel comfortable saying that just because I wanna protect their privacy, and I'm both Chinese and Filipino. That's why.
Speaker 54
Good evening, chair and members. My name is Adriana Melcosa, and I'm the, executive director of the Watsonville Law Center providing prelegal services in the Central Coast thanks to, immigration funding. I could have submitted a written comment, but I drove three hours here and driving three hours back just like our community members do to seek legal services. I will also show up for our community because it's our duty to stand in solidarity and advocate, for them. Our organization is direct witness, to the impact of the California Immigrant Justice Fellowship.
Back, six years ago, we fought fiercely along Central Valley leaders to ensure our region wasn't left behind. We have seen two cohorts of fellows become the backbone of our legal services. For us, capacity is not a buzzword. It's the difference between taking a case or turning our families away. To truly serve our communities, we need funding.
This gives us the agility to build infrastructure and meet the high state needs and reduce the scams and fraud our families face on a daily basis because of the lack of resources. The stability of a region depends on the stability of the funds. We urge you this committee to prioritize the fellowship and, support the additional investment for immigration support services. Without this, our neighbors, backbone, of the economy and longtime taxpayers, Most important, our community members will navigate a complex system alone leading to separating families and destabilizing, our economy. We owe this to them.
Thank you.
Speaker 55
Good evening, mister chair. Graciela Castillo Cranes here on behalf of Vera, Institute of Justice here in strong support for the base budget for immigration legal services, and we also urge, like my other colleagues, the 40,000,000 in additional funding for immigration services. These investments are obviously gonna protect our families, ensure that our workforce is protected, and also uphold our due process. Thank you.
Speaker 56
Good good evening, chair. My name is Abraham with the Immigrant Immigrant Legal Resource Center. The ILRC is a national clearinghouse in immigration law and policy. Here in full support of the legal services as mentioned today, including maintaining the ongoing funds for California Immigration Legal Service at 75,000,000 and increasing that funding by $40,000,000. ILRC is also full support of the immigration legal fellowship program and the children holistic immigration representation project, also known as CHERB.
I know there was a lot of moving stories that were shared today. Just to give you sort of a personal story, I'm from the Central Valley, specifically for Modesto, Stanislaus County. We are one of the underserved regions that were talked about today, and, truly, the fellowship and the immigration legal services program has been transformative for countless families, and we need continue ensuring that California continues living up to its name, and protecting all. Thank you so much.
Speaker 13
Good evening, mister chair. Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Central American Resource Center. Goddess it.
Speaker 1
seconds. Habit. I've been at this for three years now. And just like clockwork, I think we're almost done. And then you always pop out of the hallway Yeah.
That's right. And get in line.
Speaker 1
What's up? I'm thinking dinner. I'm thinking about, oh, I might have time for that show. And then you just pop up again.
Speaker 1
I say? Have, Murrah. I just wanna let you know. I see you. I I know I see you operate.
I just wanna make sure you know. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 13
Here at Pointe Olive College, my colleagues on immigration legal services in all
Speaker 1
If you keep doing that, you could do that anytime you want to. Hey. I wanna thank all of you for for being here. The folks you all represent need you more than ever. And as I've said before, we're all on the same team.
All it's gonna take all of us sharing information, sharing stories, coming up with innovative ideas to try to figure out how we can keep people as stable as possible, how we can ensure the human and civil rights as of as many people as possible, and and how we can get as many people on a pathway to thrive as much as possible. I just see HR one as a a bump in the road. It ain't gonna stop us from continue to do what we know we're gonna do. And no matter how many times or how many people the federal government says it's not worthy of support, California will continue to double down that says your your humanity is enough. You don't in this committee, you don't we don't care how many lobbyists you have or if you have a lobbyist at all.
We don't care if you don't feel like you have a voice. If if you say you need something, we're gonna try to get it done. And so thank you very much for all that you're due. This is just at the beginning of a long journey that we're gonna be doing together. And as I've said before, there's no such thing as over communicating.
So please reach out anytime that you need to. Don't assume that I know what's going on. Don't assume that I've seen it. As each of you know and you've seen this agenda, it's a whole lot. And this is just one hearing on a few on on these issues.
We have a whole lot more issues, a whole lot more populations that we need to hear from and empower as well. I want to thank members of this committee for participating. I wanna thank committee staff as always for their work. They never clapped for me. What you what you all doing?
Okay. Whatever. Alright. I feel better now. I wanna thank our sergeants as well and anyone else who has been participating in this process.
Again, a long road to go, but I am confident we can do this together. So thank you very much. And seeing no other business on the agenda, we are adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.