Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on State Administration, Tuesday, March 10, 2026
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on State Administration California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 1
Those mics feel like they were working on this side. Those mics can we check the mics on that side? Do you wanna do it again?
Redner 5
Good afternoon, chair and committee members. I'm I'm here to present on item five, the subsequent injury benefit trust fund trailer bill language. In my presentation today, I will provide a brief background on the program, its challenges, the impact of these challenges on workers, state and public assessments, and workload for the Department of Industrial Relations and the division of workers' compensation, and lastly, provide an overview of the trailer bill language that seeks to address the unfettered growth in the program and return the program back to its intended purpose, to support our most severely disabled workers. Through comprehensive reform, we will ensure the long term viability and ongoing stability of this important benefit to injured workers. SABTF was established in 1945 to promote the hiring of veterans returning from World War two with missing limbs.
Employers at the time did not want to hire veterans due to workers' compensation costs if they sustained an additional injury at work. Under this program, the employer is responsible only for the disability that results from the subsequent workplace injury. This program is supported by an assessment on all employers, public and private. Since the passage of this program, protections offered under SIBTF are now provided by other policies and programs that did not exist when subsequent injury funds were first established. The California Fair Employment Housing Act, established in 1959, and the Americans with Disability Act, established in 1990, both prohibit discrimination disability discrimination in employment.
And the Social Security Disability Insurance, established in 1956, provides compensation for non work related disabilities. 18 states and the District Of Columbia have repealed their SIBTF programs because of the enactment of the ADA and growing financial liabilities of the program. However, the administration understands the importance of this program to our most severely injured workers without disability pensions and has put forward a proposal to comprehensively reform the program to ensure its long term viability and availability. The exponential growth in SIBTF claims and liabilities are not due to choices or actions or deliberative steps taken by the legislature to broaden the program. However, over the last several years, there has been an exponential and unsustainable growth in the SIBTF program's applications, backlog, and liabilities that has led the program to become unmanageable.
This unsustained growth is causing long delays for workers and severe staffing challenges for the department. The largest driver of unsustainable growth in the program is the 2020 Todd v SIBTF decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The WCAB ruled that multiple injuries and SIBTF claims are to be added together instead of combined like in the regular workers' compensation system. This decision dramatically lowered the medical threshold for workers with SIBTF claims to receive a 100% permanent disability rating, which is rare in the regular workers' compensation system. When an applicant has a 100% rating, the amount of benefits to which they're entitled to increases, dramatically.
Between 2020 and 2022, eighty two percent of cases were determined to be at a 100% disability. And since then, the percentage of a hundred percent cases has grown even higher. Additionally, the lack of guardrails in SABTF has led to unfettered growth in the program. These guardrails are found in the regular workers' compensation system to contain cost and prevent misuse and fraud. These guardrails include, or lack of these guardrails include, under SABTF, the preexisting condition does not have to be work related.
The scope of SIBTF claims has expanded beyond providing supplemental benefits to injured workers with severe disabilities. Nearly seventy percent of claims include one or more chronic condition as a preexisting disability. Thirty five percent of claims include two or more chronic conditions. These conditions include hypertension, sleep apnea, diabetes, headaches, acid reflux, allergies, and sexual dysfunction. Second, under SIBTF, preexisting conditions do not have to be work limiting.
SIBTF currently covers asymptomatic preexisting conditions or preexisting conditions that do not affect a worker's job. Third, under SIBTF, preexisting conditions are not subject to the qualified medical evaluator or QME process. Under the regular workers' compensation system, all parties operate under the QME process. This requirement does not apply to SIBTF claims. The significant resource need at DIR is showcased by the exponentially growing volume of annual applications in the program and the backlog.
Between fiscal year twenty ten to 2014, around 850 new SIBTF applications were filed per year. Last fiscal year, DIR received 5,379 applications, a six fold increase in applications. This year, we're on pace to be the highest year of applications received with DIR receiving 4,818 applications from 07/01/2025 to just yesterday, an increase of 1,160 applications from January alone. In fiscal year twenty twenty three, there were over 15,000 pending cases in the backlog. In fiscal year twenty twenty five, this number grew to over 25,000 cases.
As of last week, we have exceeded 30,000 pending cases in the backlog, doubling in the past five years alone. Without comprehensive reform, the anticipated increase in claims in future years will lead to significant delays for workers, unmanageable staffing challenges for the department and the division, and a significant increase in public and private sector employer assessments. It is simply not possible to increase staffing alone to timely process claims given the exponential growth in case volume. Comprehensive reform is needed to address the underlying challenges with the program. We need a sustainable program for injured workers.
Without amendments to the SIBTF statutes to slow the growth of cases and reduce SIBTF liabilities, DIR estimates total liable liabilities will increase to approximately $30,000,000,000 by fiscal year twenty nine thirty. This is a $7,000,000,000 increase from last year's estimate alone. Since the RAM study concluded in 2022, we have seen liability projections grow by over 280%. The impact on the employer assessment is expected to grow from 14,000,000 in fiscal year twenty fifteen to 1,500,000,000.0 in fiscal year twenty nine thirty. Public self insured employer share has grown from 19,000,000 to 251,000,000, and the state's share is expected to grow from 3,000,000 to 44,000,000 in this time period alone.
The administration proposes to address the significant challenges with the program through comprehensive reform. All the proposed reforms are found in the agenda, but I'm just gonna highlight some of the critical reforms with you all right now. Aligning the SIBTF process with the Kiyomi process, utilized as a guardrail in the regular workers' compensation system, clarify the use of the combined values chart, the CBC chart, for an SIBTF claimant's preexisting disability and subsequent industrial injury, elimination of the 1.4 future earnings capacity adjustment to align with the original intent of the law, clarify preexisting disabilities must be documented in evidence that existed before the incurrence of the subsequent industrial injury, and clarify that preexisting disabilities must be labor disabling at the time of the subsequent injury to eliminate applications based on asymptomatic conditions or treatable conditions that do not have an impact on the employee's ability to work, establish that provisions in the trailer bill will apply to all open SIBTF cases that have not yet become final either through settlement or court decision. With these changes, the administration estimates that growth of program will return to manageable levels, ensure claims are timely processed for our most severely injured workers, and avoid increasing cost to public and private sector employers by billions of dollars over the long term.
Additionally, with the proposed budget change proposal, the department and division will be able to resolve the existing backlog of pending applications, minimize impacts on the uninsured employer's benefit trust fund, and manage the program with fewer resources than would be needed absent reforms. With these comprehensive reforms, California, unlike other states, be able to ensure the ongoing viability and long term availability of this important benefit. Given the complexity of this program with me today, I have three technical experts, Ken Lau, chief counsel at the Department of Industrial Relations, Nicole Richardson, acting administrative director and chief counsel at the division of workers' compensation, and judge Paige Levy, chief judge division of workers' compensation. Thank you all, and happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.
Redner 9
Chaz Alamo with the Ledge Analyst Office. As you may recall, this issue came before the subcommittee last year, and our office wrote a report assessing the CIVTIP program. That report essentially outlined how the program had changed from its original intention to what it is today with more relaxed eligibility standards, more claims commonly carrying asymptomatic chronic conditions like hypertension. We put forth sort of broad recommendations in that report for the legislature to consider, and our assessment of the proposed trailer bill language from the administration this year is that it's largely aligned with the recommendations we made last year. I won't go into the specifics as have been outlined already, but I can say that the TBL at this point appears to be a meaningful step toward returning the CIPTIP program to its original intent, which would also preserve the program for injured workers or disabled workers who are to to suffer a subsequent work injury, and it would also help minimize some of the increasing public and private employer costs associated with the program.
I think one of the interesting or important issues of context for the subcommittee to keep in mind is that many of the programs under its purview, unemployment insurance, paid family leave, some of the health and safety requirements that DIR oversees. These programs entail direct and indirect costs for employers and for workers. And when we think of the CIMTIF program and its costs, we have determine how best to weigh these additional costs for these benefits relative to the sort of broad scope of the the other programmatic costs that this subcommittee oversees. So just a flag for keeping this in context. But to summarize, our assessment is that the TBL is largely consistent with our recommendations.
It will be a path forward. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Appreciate that. Any other comments before we move to members? Members, before we go ahead and start this, I'll just make a few comments. We did hear this, item, last year, is quite complex, and I've appreciated learning more about it since then.
And I'll go ahead and open it up to members for either questions or comments.
Redner 10
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you all for being here. As was mentioned, we did talk about this very complex program last year, where we discussed the the needed changes. And, thanks to the administration for the conversations we've had since then. My office, as you know, has a bill related to the changes and had a bill last year and has another bill this year.
So I will start with the first question, which is, I think, at the core of what we do as a legislature when it comes to balancing the budget and having policy discussions and bills. Why is the intent to make such major changes to this program, through a trailer bill language rather than the legislature's policy process?
Redner 5
Yeah. I'm happy to take that question. This proposal is included in the budget as requested by the administration and the veto of a b thirteen twenty nine. For a program that's facing significant workload challenges and exponentially growing liabilities, The budget process allows for the evaluation of the proposed reforms, the exponentially growing liabilities, the public and private sector employer assessment, and current and future resource needs for the department. Additionally, the budget process allows for the ability to assess the impact of proposed reforms on the growing backlog, delays for injured workers, and other programs such as the unemployed insure unemployed, insurers benefit trust fund that a standard policy bill would not have allowed for.
Ultimately, we cannot discuss the proposed reforms without additionally discussing the solvency of the fund and the proposed BCP, which we'll hear about shortly. The BCP is proposed and based on the reforms being adopted in their entirety. And if that does not occur, we will need to discuss what the BCP and future resources to the department look like and the impact overall on the program, the impact on public employer assessments, overall fund liabilities, and the delay in terms of the backlog. So that is why we believe the budget process is the appropriate path, and the BCP really building off of the trailer bill language and the comprehensive reforms that are included there.
Redner 10
I would argue that what you just stated actually makes it makes it for the argument to actually have these policy conversations rather than just one hearing on the budget, and instead being able to have these lengthy conversations with my colleagues being able to weigh in on such a big program that impacts many, many, people across the state. And so to just put it into one trailer bill language, where we have very minimal participation, which you just laid out, it's very complex. And I continue, and I think many of my colleagues continue to support the idea of having such major changes done through the policy legislative process rather than continue to have to come to these budget hearings and listening to the administration wanting to do such things through this through this budget process. On that note, what savings will reserve, result from the governor's propo or from your proposal? Yeah.
Sorry.
Redner 10
What savings will result from this proposal? We estimate saving well, there'll be
Redner 5
a cost avoidance in the billions of dollars in terms of assessments for public and private sector employers as well as the workload needed at the department and division to be able to staff a proposal, or to staff a program. And that all really varies depending on is it the comprehensive reforms adopted, is it limited reforms, or no reforms? And so we estimate that with the reforms we have, that it will be a cost avoidance in the billions of dollars.
Redner 5
don't have a number. I'm happy to share, if it's helpful, specific numbers related to, just what we're projecting out for the assessment. So as I had stated in my testimony, the cost to self insured or sorry. The overall liabilities to employers, it was 14,000,000 in fiscal year twenty fifteen, and that's projected to be 1,500,000,000.0 in fiscal year twenty nine thirty. The cost to public self insured employers, so those are our our public sector, employers, was 19,000,000 and is projected to be 251,000,000, and the state share was 3,000,000 and is now projected to be 44,000,000 by fiscal year twenty nine thirty.
K. And that doesn't include the workload cost at the department and division.
Redner 10
Now your proposal also okay. Let me let me reframe this. So is there legal precedence for changing the rules of a state benefit program while people are waiting for their cases to be decided?
Redner 5
Yes. There is long standing precedent which supports the legislature's authority to implement workers' compensation changes applicable to existing applications and open cases. I'm happy to cite a case, in Rio Linda Union School District versus Worker Comp Appeal Board from 2005 held that SB eight ninety nine, which is a workers' comp bill, from that time, which changed the rules respective to apportionment, could apply to pending cases given the legislature's express intent in the statute. The court ruled that even a case that had been submitted prior to the effective date of s b eight ninety nine, but where the workers' comp judge did not issue a finding and award until four days after the effective date had to be annulled and reissued consistent with s b 89 August. Happy to cite additional court cases or share that with the committee if that is helpful.
Redner 10
are in queue? In the queue who would be impacted by the changes? Because not only are you talking about future cases, but people who are currently in the queue who would now be basically not not able to access it.
Redner 6
So my understanding is that there's 30,000 or over 30,000 cases in the backlog. And if those cases are not resolved before the effective date of the bill, then the new rules would apply.
Redner 10
So we're talking about over 30,000 disabled veterans who were injured who are injured, who are essentially are being completely eliminated from the program despite no fault of their own. They're in the queue currently.
Redner 5
So I think it might be helpful because of how the complexity of the case to kinda walk you through the
Redner 10
process of an SABTF claim. And, I just wanna know because you're proposing to make changes that include the current people who are in the queue.
Redner 5
Is that not accurate? So there are folks that have applications and open cases. In the process of an SIBTF claim, there are many different steps. The first step is submitting an application, opening a case, and then gathering evidence. A case examiner will then take the evidence that they currently have, but that also means that there might be a need for additional evidence.
And so a lot of the first parts of the case are actually, does the, applicant actually have the necessary evidence and information to qualify for the program. Once that, process goes through, then there is the next step, which is if there is all the necessary documentation and medical medical findings are gathered, then a settlement negotiation begins. And then the final two steps in the process, which are the settlement steps, is a hearing is set to present the case with an award be before the workers' comp judge. And after the award is signed, and approved by the workers' comp judge, then the awards start paying out. And so through that process, there could be a number of different types of applicants.
It can be, a professional athlete that has a severe list of chronic conditions. It could be a severely injured worker who is missing a limb and suffered a subsequent injury, but we don't know who's in that queue until that case gets opened and we see who that is. And the breadth of the program is beyond just veterans. It includes all types of workers who have a preexisting disability and then suffer a subsequent work injury. And so that process allows us to see who's in that queue.
And with the current backlog we face and the length of time it's gonna take for us to get through that backlog, there are severely injured workers who are waiting in that very lengthy queue with applicants who do have cases that are based solely on chronic conditions. And so in order to get through the backlog and apply the comprehensive reforms, we will reduce that waiting period for those workers who seriously need these benefits in a quick and timely fashion.
Redner 10
So, again, the proposal in front of us is to dismiss thousands of cases that are
Redner 5
dismissed. The proposed reforms would be what the cases are looked through in terms of that lens, and the proposed reforms realign the program back to its original intent, which is serving severely injured workers. So it's not just an automatic dismissal of cases. The cases will still be looked at and processed, but with the reforms that are currently being proposed in the trailer bill.
Redner 10
Okay. I have earlier, we mentioned the RAND report. The LAL also did a report. How much did we pay for the RAND report?
Redner 4
don't have that information in front of me either, but happy to get that back to you as soon as possible.
Redner 10
Yeah. I mean, I would like to have we our taxpayers should know how much we paid for this report, especially when we have labor centers across the state who we budgeted money for and were not used. So, yes, I would like to know how much we spent on this report.
Redner 10
Sorry. I don't mean to be taken up all the time. I've spent a lot of time on this Mhmm. As, you know, I care very much about the workers and making sure that, you know, we take care of this program. So how many vacancies currently exist within the DIR?
Redner 8
A report that was provided sorry. Allison Huett, Department of Finance. A report this isn't the most recent data, which the department may have to pull, but for 2425, the overall department vacancy rate 16.5% based on a report that was transmitted, to the joint legislative budget committee under control section 4.11.
Redner 8
Are you asking about, specifically the division of workers' compensation or the overall
Redner 8
is the point in time data that that we provided that we have available, but we can follow-up with more current data.
Redner 10
So can you you know, you keep talking about the backlog and of cases and the vacancy rate that your office has. So can you please explain to me why we we we would wanna give you a $100,000,000 to address the backlog when that hasn't been done for years?
Redner 5
And I know the next item is the budget change proposal, but I'm happy to pass it along to my colleague, Josh, related to this to clarify what is in the BCP and how many positions are requested in the phase in to ensure that we can actually appropriately staff in a over a five year phase in period to address the backlog.
Redner 4
Hi. The budget change proposal that was included in the governor's proposed budget, includes a five year phase in of 177 positions and $36,500,000.
Redner 4
The, budget change proposal that was included in the governor's proposed budget, specific to this SIBTF program included a five year phase in of 177 positions totaling $36,500,000.
Redner 12
Thank you, madam chair, and thank you for the presentation today as we're revisiting this issue and getting our minds around a pretty significant dollar value and and work load here. I understand how we got here today and the case that, you know, sort of kicked this all off that is requiring us to relook at this. But I'm wondering whether or not today this decision or what would become of the decision through the budget, is our only option. Is it if I'm oversimplifying it here, it feels like are we exhausting this fund essentially as of this fiscal year, which always had a balance to date, but now we're basically gonna deplete it. And what does that mean for future years?
Redner 5
If I sorry. Sorry. It's little hard to hear you, but if I understand your correct your question correctly is, are we exhausting all the funds that are currently in the program? The program is funded by employer liability or employer assessments.
Redner 5
And so as liabilities continue to grow and workload continues to grow, the assessments are what also will continue to grow. And so that is the assessments are what pay for the program, but I'm happy to pass it along to colleagues to to fill that in.
Redner 4
Well, the the the SIBTF program is a is a fund Right. That pays those benefits. The employees of the department are paid from a separate fund, the Workers' Compensation Administration Revolving Fund, but both of those funds are included in the annual labor code 62.5 employer assessment. So as these cases continue, to grow exponentially, as the liabilities continue to grow exponentially, so will the annual assessment on all employers in the state. There's about 1,700,000 employers in the state.
Redner 4
They all pay into this regardless of whether they're public or private, regardless of whether they purchase workers' compensation insurance or are self insured. So all of these costs are passed on to all employers in the state.
Redner 12
To what to what degree? Can you give me a sense of magnitude if I'm a small business owner, like, you know, what what kind of changes are they gonna see?
Redner 5
I can provide numbers broadly on the employer's assessment and where the trajectory is going, and then we can see if we are able to provide more specific to the SABTF assessment. There's a workers' comp assessment that is assessed on employers, and SABTF is a separate assessment that is added on for the program. And so just for some context, in twenty fifth sorry. In fiscal year twenty fifteen, the assessment was $14,000,000 for employers. That is going to rise to 1,500,000,000.0 by fiscal year twenty nine thirty, and that is a conservative estimate not knowing what the increase in applications or the backlog will be by 2930.
So far, all of our our projections, they've been, they've been met far before that we projected. We projected a 30,000 pending backlog by July, and we hit that number last week. And so, just knowing that that is a conservative employer assessment. On the public self insured side, it was $19,000,000, and it is now going to be projected to $251,000,000. And for the state, that's $3,000,000 projected out to $44,000,000.
So as you can see, it's exponentially rising.
Redner 12
Beyond exponentially. It's astronomical. Yeah. What when you're analyzing sort of what our needs or our options might be for this year, did you have any kind of actual actuarial analysis done? Did any help give us options?
Redner 5
So the RAND study that was conducted, utilized, actuarial analysis and had a full team of researchers. And so I'm happy to pass it off to Josh. That was before my time of joining the agency to explain more about what Rand conducted in their specific study.
Redner 4
Agree. Yeah. It was, an economic and actuarial evaluation of cases, from 2010 through 2022. But, my colleague mentioned the the Todd versus WCAB decision, that was in 2020. So, really, looking at cases prior to 2020, it it's not, representative of cases after 2020, after the Todd decision.
So, we saw, the the estimated liabilities of the SIPTF program from the RAND report was around $7,900,000,000 for that period of time in which they looked, and we're estimating that has grown to be $30,000,000,000, if we project out to year 2930.
Redner 12
What are our options to date, though, to go back and revisit maybe some of the or, you know, sort of challenge some of the criteria that are going into this? Because that kind of a fiscal change, right, is is any tied right to, how we are reclassifying some of these disability levels and and the associated levels of payout that is gonna come with that. I'm just deeply concerned about the magnitude of of growth here. And if I mean, yes, there's a court decision, but what are our options to go back and look at some of the criteria that are going into this that might change some of that actuarial analysis, if any?
Redner 9
Assemblymember Ward, Chaz Alamo with the Ledge Analyst Office. I think maybe the the first clarifying point to make is that the Todd decision was made by the Work Comp appeals board, which is a a a group of sort of quasi judicial members appointed by the legislature and the governor. The second bit of context to help home in on costs is that to sort of really synthesize the RAND study and to oversimplify, but I think it's a helpful metric, They expect that the average CIPTIF claim for 100% permanent disability that's approved through the process carries a lifetime cost for employers of about a million dollars. So we have 30,000 outstanding claims in the backlog. The administration anticipates that that carries a lifetime fiscal cost to the employer community, both public and private, of $30,000,000,000 That's about a million dollars apiece.
And that is because of the structure of the state's disability payment system. When a worker receives 100% permanent disability, they're entitled to a lifetime benefit of up to $1,700 a week. That's dramatically larger than the lifetime benefit they would receive if their disability rating was 99%. So there's this cliff effect. Right.
The Todd decision lowered the sort of injury or disability threshold for that 100% rating. So just a larger share of the workers going through the process for CIVTIF are receiving that 100% disability rating, which is what's putting pressure on the fiscal. It's not a fun per se because employers are paying the assessment each year, but that's what's amplifying the fiscal pressure. Our office put forth options to narrow the eligibility such that workers with the most substantial preexisting conditions and preexisting disabilities could access that 100% disability. Right.
Workers with chronic conditions that are common, age related chronic conditions, who maybe were asymptomatic, those conditions weren't documented at the time. They were only documented after the subsequent work related injury. Workers who, in some cases, might be able to continue working. Those workers under the reforms that our office suggested and the administration has put forth would be less likely to be eligible for 100% lifetime disability benefit. They may still be eligible for a lower benefit amount, but that narrowing of the eligibility criteria means that the incentive program under the TBL would look more like it did when it was originally designed to support workers with substantial serious preexisting conditions and to provide a lesser benefit amount to workers with less substantial preexisting conditions.
That's a question for the legislature to make. What kind of program does it want to see? Our guidance when we evaluated CIPTIF was to look to its original intent. And so that's what our recommendations put forth, and it's pretty consistent with what the administration has put forth here.
Redner 12
And I like this, which is why I I'll have concern, and I'll I'll think about this more in the time that we have for through through subcommittee work that we might wanna have a more broad and comprehensive policy discussion about that kind of a reform and look at all of those options because what I'd would it be accurate to say if we approve this in the budget, this jump in, support, right, is something is sort of the new the new level of support that we're gonna have ongoing for every year to come?
Redner 9
I I see my Department of Finance colleagues ready to answer that question. One one element about the workload that I wanna stress is that changes to workers' compensation law are complex. They carry unintended consequences. We saw that in 2004. We saw that in 2011.
It's gonna take some follow-up by the administration and the legislature to follow how these proposed changes, if they were to be enacted, affect the caseload. It might be the case that the department genuinely needs additional resources to work through the 30,000 complex cases and move them forward under the new regime. It might be the case in the future that workload could come down because something more like 500 or 600 cases are coming in a year instead of 5,000 or 6,000 cases a year. I think it's too early to tell what the workload requirements will be for the department under the proposed Well,
Redner 12
the workload, mean, over the next five years, you're already basically asking for and this might be the next item, but you're asking for, like, you know, substantial 177 additional positions. That's not insignificant. But what I'm wondering if you can see, you know, this figure here, though it's not numbered in our in our background, just this jump here to where we would be at
Redner 9
No. Under the scope of our office's recommendations and the administration's trailer bill, those costs would likely come down substantially.
Redner 9
Because the number of workers with the most severe disabilities who would be able to meet the eligibility thresholds for the 100% disability rating benefits, those most costly benefits
Redner 9
That number is likely to come down substantially under the proposed changes as well as our recommendations. So the fiscal pressure to employers, public and private, the future is likely to come down with that count of fewer workers able to meet the eligibility standards for that 100% disability benefit.
Redner 5
And if I could just add on behalf of on behalf of the agency, the projections that we share out are if we do pursue no reforms this year or even limited reform. The proposal in front of you today with comprehensive reform is a thoughtful approach and stacking a number of different, necessary reforms to this decades old statute that is vague and unclear, and so it provides the clarity that we need. But it adds a significant guardrails that are present in the regular worker comp system that are not present here. And so by adopting those guardrails and aligning to the regular workers' compensation system, we expect the liabilities to come down, the assessments to come down. And there is a short term infusion of a five year phase in of staff and resources at the department and division, but that's because of how big the backlog has become.
And so we need those resources to be able to move through the backlog in a timely fashion. But after that five year phase in, we expect to revisit the workload and see what resources might be needed.
Redner 12
Okay. Well, something I wanna continue studying, was I strongly encourage our administrate administration partners to work with our labor chair woman as well as we try to figure out how to I mean, this this is comprehensive policy conversation that we would otherwise be doing through a trailer bill, not always a preferred way, but we have some time, I think, you know, this year to try to make sure that we get this right. Thank you.
Redner 17
Thank you so much, chair, and to my colleagues for really robust discussion, on a program that maybe, a lot of folks may not have thought about when they think of workers' comp in the state, thanks to DIR, finance, LAO for your your analysis on this really complicated issue. Just to follow-up on some of the things that my colleagues have already raised, obviously, there's lots of proposals in front of us, including ask for additional resources to DIR. Can you talk a little bit about how many staff are currently working on CIMTIF and, you know, what that caseload looks like per staff?
Redner 5
Yeah. I'm happy to pass it along to one of my colleagues in terms of the current staffing at, the department and division related to SABTF. In terms of the caseload numbers, that staff currently have, staff are current so staff are shared amongst not just SABTF, but the unemployed insurers benefit trust fund. And so there is a cross sharing of staff there. They handle on average 1,100 cases per individual per year.
So it's a very high caseload, and what the BCP proposes in the as a part of it is to come down to the industry average, which is 475 to 500 cases per individual per year. SABTF cases are more complex than the regular workers' compensation system. So just to to provide some background, a regular workers' compensation case is what we see as a snapshot of a single event, while an SABTF case is a feature length documentary of a person's entire medical and professional life. So in a regular workers' compensation case, it focuses on what happened at one job at one specific day. But in an SABTF case, there are two different cases that are being litigated at the same time.
The current work injury and every significant medical issue or injury that the person had before that job. So in a regular workers' compensation case, we might see one to two medical reports from the QME, the qualified medical evaluator. But in an SIBTF case, because the QME process does not apply, which we're proposing through the reforms, there are multiple experts commenting on the condition. So this results in three to five different physicians writing reports, thousands of pages of medical records dating back decades. So examiners are responsible for reviewing all those materials.
And so staffing addresses the processing of the papers, but it doesn't address the volume or the complexity of the evidence being generated, which is what the trailer bill reforms proposed to do. So right now, it takes staff about three to five years on average to finalize an SIBTF case Under the current proposed reforms and the subsequent budget, change proposal as proposed, we expect that processing time to come down to one to two years.
Redner 7
And as noted, there are are multiple teams that work on the SIBTF cases. The SIBTF unit specifically has 47 authorized positions as of 2526. And prior to the Todd decision, there were 15 authorized positions. There are also individuals in the OD legal office that work on these cases, but, also open to DIR if there's anything else to have.
Redner 4
I was just gonna mention what my colleague said. The the SIBTF cases are worked in the division of workers' compensation as well as in the office of the director legal unit. It wasn't that long ago when DWC had five claims examiners, and now they're up to 47. Is that what you said?
Redner 4
And within OD legal, they currently have about 50 attorneys, but those 50 attorneys are, handling not only SIBTF cases, but UEBTF cases. In 2425, these attorneys made over 9,000 court appearances statewide, which, equates to about a 180 appearances per attorney, which is a very high, caseload. And within DWC, the claims examiners have over a thousand cases each when, typical normal caseload is at 475 to 500, per
Redner 9
I I might add. Forgive me. Assembly member, in 2019, during the early years of the Newsom administration, similar trailer bill language was proposed as to what we're seeing here today, and it was also paired with a staff increase for claims examiners for subsequent injury benefit trust fund claims. The trailer bill was rescinded by the administration at the time, and the BCP for the staff increase went forward. The hope at the time was that those two would work together, much as being proposed today.
Obviously, the staff that was provided as part of the 1920 budget agreement was not sufficient because the workload increased faster than staffing could handle it. And that's why we're here today with the sort of limited examiners, high workload, complex cases, and a growing backlog.
Redner 17
Yeah. No. Thank you for that. You know, as I continue to to really dive deeper into this fund, know, I do echo, you know, the concerns that Assembly member or Teko raised about the process of this, right, with how long it takes to get even a case resolved and looked at. You said it takes one to two years.
So, you know, the the applicant, the injured worker who's going through this process, You know, we've been putting them through bureaucracy for one to two years, and then to make major changes like this without going through a process that involves the the legislature with the exception of the budget process, I think, is is really the the biggest concern that I have right now. There's obviously other, you know, policy discussions that I I would wanna have given the reforms that the administration is proposing, which, you know, some of them I agree with. I think there needs to be reforms to these programs, but how do we do it in the way that takes into account that we have people in our districts who have applied for this program that are gonna be impacted? And I think that the last question that I would ask for you, if you can just speak to kind of the the retroactive application that's being proposed. Can you speak to us about that a little bit and what that means, what the impact is?
Redner 5
Yes. Happy to speak about the, application of the proposed reforms to open applications or applications and open cases. So the amendments proposed in labor code forty seven fifty seven apply the reforms to applications and open SABTF cases that have not yet become final either through settlement or court decision. So I wanna clarify that if a worker is currently receiving SIBTF benefits in a final or closed case, this reforms will not impact that worker's benefits. These reforms only apply to applications and open cases that are in that phase when I talked about the process of gathering evidence, the evaluations, going to the negotiation, and talking about what an award looks like.
It has not reached the point of actually issuing a final decision or approval on a decision for an award. And so I think that's an important, note there. The reforms, all but one, which is a statute of limitations. Statute of limitations applies prospectively. The other reforms apply, to open applications and open cases.
So these are not cases that are yet final or have agreed been agreed upon by the applicant or the judge for a final decision. And I did just wanna clarify in terms of the backlog and the time period. So we are currently at three to five years for an SIBTF case. And with the proposed reforms and the BCP, we would get down to one to two years. And without any reforms, pursued this year, we want to, without any reforms pursued this year, especially comprehensive reforms and looking at the reforms in their entirety and seeing how they apply to different parts of the SABTF program, we would not be able to assess what that impact looks like either to the backlog, the time period for workers to have their cases processed, which is why we are pursuing it in the manner we are is to be able to have the analysis of what do the reforms comprehensively mean, whether to the workload budget or the times that workers are facing in terms of a backlog and then and getting their case through the process.
But happy to answer any other questions.
Redner 17
Thank you. Sorry. And I'm gonna ask one last question, and this is my last last one. Is we we kinda, like, talk broadly about workers, but, like, can you just give us examples, like, you see on the back end? Like, what types of workers are applying to this?
Like, do you have any, like, you know, trends that you're seeing, if there's any industries or type of workers specifically that that are currently receiving these monies? I don't have the report in front of me, but
Redner 5
there was some data on the Rand report I'm happy to share with you in terms of occupations Mhmm. Of what they studied from that time period of who was applying for the program. I'm happy to give some examples of the types of cases, but it really is the whole gamut in terms of the types of cases we're seeing, especially under the current status of the program and the vague, rules and the decade old statute that we see. So, one example we have is a professional athlete. They received a $1,000,000 close to a $1,000,000 award, which 15 of that goes to their attorney, a $150,000.
And that applicant, claimed that they had preexisting disabilities based on chronic conditions, like headaches, swollen veins, chronic health condition or chronic heartache not heartache, chronic, heart, condition. And so that was a type of applicant we're seeing. But we also see applicants who the program was intended for. So this is someone who has a missing limb, was born with a birth defect, might have a severe back injury, and they suffered a subsequent injury at work and now is applying for the SABTF program. That is who the program was always intended to be for, but we've seen a significant deviation from the original purpose of the program to these chronic conditions, which are also just conditions of aging, that occur as as we grow older.
And so that is part of the the distinction in the reforms is we're seeing a wide breadth of cases, cases that the program was intended for and cases that the program has veered, in terms of the original intent.
Redner 10
Okay. If I may, we're just can you I'm sorry. I wanna go back to the numbers. Can you tell me because I asked earlier. So how many workers who are in that middle section that you talked about would be impacted by these changes?
In terms of the process? Yeah. The process. So I heard you. Someone that's already there, done, all good, they're not gonna be impacted.
But what is the number of people that we're talking about who will be impacted?
Redner 5
So the pending backlog of applications and open cases is 30,000. Those folks have not yet gone fully through the process Okay. And reached a final decision. So that is the current backlog we, have right now. Okay.
Redner 10
Now I I wanna make something clear with my colleagues. You know, this is clearly, is there is concern here. There is reason to look at this program and propose changes, which is why I had a bill last year and why the governor acknowledged that it was a step in the right direction. And so I did look back at the the studies at LAO and the conversations we had. And today, I have another bill, AB fifteen seventy six, that actually takes into consideration, the the numbers in terms of why so many cases are coming to you and looks to eliminate conditions that appear in fifty five percent of the cases that you are now seeing Mhmm.
That are leading to this increased cost. So I don't want it, to look like we're acknowledging that there is a problem. There's definitely a problem. But I also think that there are solutions that need to be further discussed through the legislative process and not something that we do through this committee.
Redner 1
wanna thank my colleagues for very robust questions. As we can see, this is a topic that, we certainly, can and will have future conversations within this budget legislative cycle. I do wanna let you know there are some tools at hand. Number one, we can refer this to the accountability budget to do one hearing that will encompass more attendees. Number two, you certainly have your legislation that's moving for forward.
And number three, we certainly wanna make sure out of the multiple issues that this legislative body hears about, that they have time to digest and understand. I do have some questions related just to clarify for for myself. The original program was focused on veterans. And, so that those in line in the queue right now, the are they all veterans? Are there others that are not veterans?
Redner 1
So the change by the dog decision, actually changed that or throughout the program there have been others applying? Throughout the program, there have been others applying. But the initial program, which is okay because programs change over decades, of course. Secondly, when I look at some of the data that has been provided to me, if we go to page no. Of course, I'm not gonna find it.
Where's where's the charts? Page 15. We have the charts that were given to us. Just hold this up. I can't find it in mine.
This is a really a dramatic shift. And last week, we're talking about other programs that have seen dramatic upticks. Particularly last week, we were talking about in this budget committee, paid family leave. Obviously, something happened. We know there was the decision, but can we attribute any other factors to this huge uptick?
And and I guess what I'm asking is, as we have seen in the paid family leave, there have been people out there promoting the program, talking about ways to increase your benefits. Is there any evidence of that, or is this just people found out about it on their own and want access?
Redner 9
Our understanding, the LAO, in talking with stakeholders, with applicant attorneys themselves, with the administration and others, is that most workers, when they get injured at work, might pursue a workers' compensation claim. Many do. It's what it's there for. Few of those workers know of this relatively obscure, complicated state program that's available. And so in the course of working their workers' compensation claim for the subsequent injury, their attorney, who they're working with on that claim, might help them understand that this other program exists.
Additionally, the state was aware that there was growing pressure in the program before the Todd decision was made. So there was clearly something underlying this growth prior to 2020 when the Todd decision was made. Our understanding is that because CBTIF, the program procedures and rules were not included as part of the last major work comp reforms in 2011, after 2011, a group of attorneys began exploring the use of the subsequent injury benefit trust fund program to find additional benefits for injured workers. That led to a growing sort of awareness and knowledge of the program and its complex rules, and that has been some of the impetus for the growing workload that the state sees today that predates the Todd decision.
Redner 1
And, again, not being negative to those seeking this benefit. I mean, certainly, if they're entitled, they should be able to receive that. But as we can see on this graph, the sustainability of a program like this, not only for the employers but for the state, is something we have to look at seriously. So with that, just if you can give me a very quick snapshot of and I know they're all different, but of just what a typical maybe award would be for workers' compensation with serious injuries and then the additional amount this award would add to it. So if you were to get the full 100% package with SIBTIF.
Redner 6
Sure. So if you have a, say, a workers workers' comp injury award of 40% or so. I don't know how that translates onto the money chart, but if you get a 100% from SIBTF, then you get a a lifetime award, and it can go up to, like, a million dollars, right, over depending on the, life expectancy of the of the worker and whether they, have any disability pensions, which SIBTF can take credit for. So there's a major jump because very few cases in the regular workers' compensation system, gets to a 100%. But because of the the case Todd, you have disabilities from the from the workers' comp injury and then added to the permanent disability of the preexisting disabilities to reach a 100%, whereas in regular workers' comp cases, you use generally the CVC, the combined values chart.
And, just as an example, having a, nine say, a 95% permanent disability and a 10% permanent disability, combining them does not get up to a 100%. Right? But, obviously, if you add them, you're over a 100%. So by adding, you you the the liability for the fund increases exponentially.
Redner 1
So without too much more, we can say it's quite significant. Alright. With that, I will, as chair, ask, our accountability chair if we can hear this, and, and then I know you're gonna continue to move your legislation. And I would say, the administration should engage with our, chair of labor as, frequently and as friendly as possible. I know, there's different lenses people look through, but vetting this is, extremely important to many, many people.
With that, we are going to open it up to public comments. Thirty seconds or under.
Redner 13
Good afternoon, madam chair, members of the committee. Alberto Torico on behalf of the California Applicant Attorneys Association. I wanna let us set a couple of points. There's been a lot of a lot said about the 30,000 case backlog. I will remind this committee that there is a 47,000 case backlog for wage and hour cases.
What if we change those tax limitations to eliminate those cases? Because that's what's being asked in this instance. CalOSHA has record number of cases that haven't been processed similar to the Department of Industrial Relations and workers' comp. There's one something similar to all these agencies that's happened since the this administration began. They all have the highest level of vacancies in the state.
So part of the problem here is the failure to fill these positions. Second, we do acknowledge that there is a problem, and we should have a discussion, but this is not something for a budget trailer bill. Neither Schwarzenegger nor Brown, not even governor Newsom has tried to change workers' comp to a budget trailer bill. This is more aptly placed in a in a full bill with all the hearings that are required. Thank you.
Redner 19
Thank you, madam chair and members. Megan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, and I appreciate the time we've spent with the administration and also with this committee. A couple of concerns we wanna flag for your consideration as you work through this issue. We do have members that access this fund. We are extremely concerned about the retroactivity provision in this bill that would, from our view, require that any of the 30,000 applications that are still pending, if they are even eligible under the new, eligibility requirements, to start back from the beginning.
We, frankly, try to do retroactive things in the work comp space all the time, and we are told absolutely not. No way. It has to apply to an injury on or after in the future. So we would ask for your consideration of that. And, secondarily, we've, raised some concerns that we are still working through related to the double recovery provisions.
If a firefighter has a disability retirement that is commingled with their service connected retirement, how the fund would be able to reduce double recovery for their whole pension is a concern for us. So appreciate your paying attention to
Redner 21
Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Stephan Johnson. I'm a physician. I'm part of the California Coalition for Injured Worker.
I perform those SIBTF evaluation. Our coalition is nonprofit and also includes injured workers. And I want to make a few recommendations. First of all, we I have never seen a professional athlete as part of my practice in doing SIBTF. The patients that I've seen are at the threshold of poverty or homeless.
And that's the reality. And we do not consider that common age related conditions is a proper way to discuss what a disability really means, what that might translate to in real life work. And for that reason, we want to have a debate through the legislative process where these issues can be addressed by professionals, and we are interested in a sustainable fund. We're interested into the guardrails and to the administrative support that the d w c requires, but we want it done with equity, logic, and legal sense. Thank you.
Redner 22
Thank you, madam chair and members. Jason Schmelzer here on behalf of the California Coalition on Workers' Compensation. Just wanna thank the administration for bringing forward, the trailer bill language. We're strongly supportive of the proposal. It's vitally important for employers and the state of California, for the state, not just as a matter of administrative burden, is directly related to the budget and implementing the BCP, but as a payer of the assessment.
The other thing I'd like to say is that a lot of what is in the trailer bill has been considered by the legislature last year. Thank you to assembly member Ortega's legislation. So there has been a very thorough discussion, but this is the only piece of legislation that we have seen that fully addresses the RAND and LAO recommendations and actually gets the program back on the rails. So we would urge you to proceed when the time is right. Thank you very much.
Redner 23
the committee. Laura Curtis on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. Thank you so much for this committee's time today. We are in strong support of the administration's SIBTF proposal before you all today. We agree with Jason's comments with regard to the the it's no longer functioning the way that it should have should be functioning.
The intent is no longer the same as it was decades ago. We are seeing it ballooning out of control. It's not, the workers are no longer getting the benefits in a timely manner as well as the, assessments on employers are, just too high. So thank you so much.
Redner 24
Good afternoon. Faith Gorgeous on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities representing many of the public entities self insureds that were discussed here today. For all of those reasons that have been stated, by the two speakers before me and others, we would like to speak in support of the governor's proposal on SIBTF. Thank you.
Redner 25
Good after good afternoon. My name is Stuart Girard. I'm here on behalf of the California Coalition of Injured Workers. We were represent injured workers, attorneys, and doctors. We echo the concerns with the SIBTF trailer bill raised here today by all members.
Specifically, I'd like to restate the retroactive component of the trailer bill will dramatically hurt the injured workers by eliminating thousands of pending applications from the process who invested time, money, and seeking this benefit that that they deserve. These workers have followed every rule, relied on law, and stood when filed and stood when filed. Such retroactive provision would is fundamentally unfair and raises serious constitutional questions. We agree with the assemblywoman Ortega, who's introduced fifteen seventy six specific to SIBTF, and urge the committee to take issue out of the trailer bill and debate in a policy bill. We stand ready to to work with all parties, and the administration to to fall find a long term solution to SIBTF.
Thank you.
Redner 14
Good afternoon. Thank you, madam chair and members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Prism, in strong support of the administration's proposed, SIBTF reforms. Prism is a local joint powers authority that provides liability pooling and risk management services to cities, counties, and, other local entities. And the looming fiscal crisis related to the SIBTF fund, would absolutely crush our our local entities with, increased assessments costing them millions of dollars as as was stated by the administration.
And so for those reasons and strong support of, the proposed trailer billing, which thank you.
Redner 14
Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee. Carlos Gutierrez of KSC here on behalf of the California Grocers Association. And I'll just simply align my comments with the previous speaker. Thank you.
Redner 26
Good afternoon. Eric Lohrey speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Counties representing all 58 counties in the state as well as the California Special Districts Association representing roughly, 1,000 special districts in California. We're in strong support of the budget trailer bill language. We think it's critical to addressing the long term sustainability of the program and bending the cost curve for public agencies. Thank you.
Redner 11
Good afternoon, madam chair members. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We are here in strong support today of the trailer bill language. We believe this proposal appropriately implements the recommendations that were recommended by not one, but two independent entities that looked at this issue. And we do strongly believe it is appropriate for a trailer bill, given the ongoing fiscal crisis and the billions of dollars that will be imposed on not only private employers but also public employers over the next few years if it's not fixed immediately.
Thank you.
Redner 27
Good afternoon. Steve Chamberlain with the California Coalition for Injured Workers. We support Ortega's legislation fifteen seventy six. Primary reason is the as discussed, the 30,000 applications that will be eliminated. The trailer bill forces us to go back through the process dictated by, the work comp QME case, and, we don't see any way for those to be reconciled.
So we support, eliminating the bill the trailer bill and using legislative process. Thank you.
Redner 28
Good afternoon. Scott Thompson, the California Coalition on, for injured workers. Assembly member Ortega, you asked how much the RAND study cost at the Cheswick hearing, most recently. The the members of RAND testified that it was a $750,000 of taxpayer funds to to pay for that. I think it's worth noting that they spoke to absolutely zero injured workers when they did that study.
I'm
Redner 28
claims adjuster myself. Keeping in mind that according to the Rand study, the average caseload for the the adjusters at s SIBTF was approximately 685 open cases. There's just no way that someone can handle that many cases. As a former claims adjuster, I handled approximately 200 litigated cases, and that was a full forty hour work week. There's just no way you can adequately handle those cases, not have them get out of hand and get more expensive.
Thank you for your time.
Redner 4
Good afternoon, chair and members. Nick Chappie here on behalf of the California Trucking Association in support of the proposed budget trailer bill language to reform the SIBTF. We align our comments with the chamber of commerce. As we heard, the proposed budget language implements independent recommendations from both the LAO and RAN that will help realign the SIBTF with its original intent. With that, CTA strongly urges support of the TBL.
Thank you.
Redner 29
Thank you all. On behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, my name is Sarah Bridges. I'm here in support of the governor's trailer bill and the reforms to the subsequent injury workers' comp program. We know that without the reforms suggested by the LAO, this important program will continue to impose significant and costly obligations. For employers like manufacturers who are already very aware of the affordability concerns of California, these costs can be very weedy.
Thank you.
Redner 30
Good afternoon, chair members. I'm Sabrina Lockhart, executive director of the California Attractions and Parks Association. We are here in strong support of the administration's trailer bill language. I align my comments to others who spoke from the business community, but specific to our industry is predictability. We hire lots of seasonal workers.
We have to make plans in advance for investments in safety, investments in new attractions. And so the the runaway costs with this program are a big concern to our members. Thank you.
Redner 31
Glenn Welch, on behalf of the Schools Insurance Authority, we were founded in 1974. We cover schools in Northern And Central California. We exist to support good public school education and adequate funding. We're here to support the governor's proposal. It's the only proposal we have seen that actually steps up to the actual situation that exists.
One thing I would like to point out is that there's another study that's been done by the former chief actuary of the workers' compensation insurance authority, WCIRB. Sorry. That adds quite a bit to the estimate of accumulated liability. That report will be made available, and that ups the ante to about $31,000,000,000 of accumulated accumulated liability by the end of this year, and the increase is about $2,500,000,000 a year every time this program continues without being changed. So, again, we support the governor's proposal.
It's the only answer to situation we're looking at now, the only realistic answer. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Seeing no one else approaching the mic, we are gonna go ahead and close this item. We appreciate the panelists. Thank you. Just for the public, we will go to item number six and then seven and complete department of industrial relationships and then go back up to one.
So if you're looking for your item, we are now going to item number six, which is subsequent injury benefit trust workload. And I think we have some of our same panelists here. We are on page 20 if you're looking for the item. Alright. And we're gonna be swift through this.
Redner 4
Hi. Good afternoon. Josh Iverson, chief financial officer for the Department of Industrial Relations. We have touched on some of my points, so, I'll be swift. I might skip a couple paragraphs here.
The department is requesting a a a five year phase in of 01/1977 positions totaling $36,500,000. These positions will be dedicated to the, SIBTF program, and they are for the division of workers' compensation where the claims adjusters are in the office of the director legal unit where the attorneys are and then also, for administrative support. The totals are about 92 positions for the division of workers' compensation, 67 positions for office of the director legal unit, 18 positions for administrative support. These additional resources combined with the proposed, reforms in the trailer bill language, are intended to create additional capacity, in in the claims examiners and the attorneys. Currently, the claims examiners' caseload is in excess of 1,000 cases per examiner.
We mentioned the attorney workload. There's currently 50 attorneys. In 2425, these attorneys made over 9,000 court appearances statewide. And the attorneys are dedicated not only to SIBTF, but also the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund or UEBTF. So adding capacity to the office of the director of legal unit would, ensure that the, UEBTF cases are are crookly heard as well.
Just mentioned the staffing levels we're requesting represent a carefully calibrated response assuming reform. To the extent that final reforms differ from our projections, we may need to propose adjustments during the spring budget process or in future budget cycles. DIR is committed to monitoring actual caseload trends and requesting modifications as needed. I appreciate the subcommittee's consideration of this request, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Redner 9
Chaz Alamo with the LAO. We have no issues with the proposed staffing increase but would stress that it'd be best paired with reforms of some kind, whether they're the exact ones being in the TBL or not, that those two should go together.
Redner 1
And you did note, I believe, in our last panel that there were some reforms that were being proposed and hiring, but the reforms were not made, but the hiring were made. Is that correct? That's correct. So this being paired together Let's go ahead and any other comments here? Any questions?
Redner 10
Just on the budget request, so how much is it that we're you are requesting?
Redner 1
Okay. Any other questions? Then I wanted to go back to the vacancies that were noted by one of the speakers related to not just DIR, but also OSHA. I know that came up last year as far as us, not us, you, trying to get, individuals hired. There was, an and forgive me if I'm getting the departments mixed up, but I know there was a note that some of the criteria for hiring was impacting the job hires.
Has there been any rectifying that?
Redner 7
While he confers with his colleagues, I just wanted to note that the division of workers' compensation within DIR has historically had the lowest rates of vacancies with among the three largest divisions within the department. So the other two being CalOSHA, as you mentioned, and the labor commissioner's office. Those are the three
Redner 1
I think it was CalOSHA that had the large vacancies. Correct. Alright. So different we'll we'll get to that not today, but, yes, that's on the topic of hiring. Alright.
I think that's all the questions I have. Any others? Anybody from the public wishing to speak to this item? Alright. Then we are going to go swift as can be, and that will close this item, item number six.
Thank you to our panelists, and we're gonna go to item number seven. California Workplace Outreach Program or CROP for short. It looks like we have a new panelist. We'll make sure you introduce yourself.
Redner 4
Good afternoon, Josh Iverson, chief financial officer from the Department of Industrial Relations.
Redner 32
Michelle Yoon, deputy director of the office of external affairs within DIR.
Redner 1
Alright. Thank you to our panelists. And who is going to begin? I will begin. Alright.
Redner 32
Good afternoon, madam chair and members of the subcommittee. My name is Michelle Yoon. I'm the deputy director of the office of external affairs at the Department of Industrial Relations. I have a background in community organizing, policy advocacy, as well as philanthropy, and I joined DIR about six months ago on September 2025. Today, I'll be providing an update about the California Workplace Outreach Project, also known as CWAP.
CWAP is a CWAP CWAP is a partnership between DIR and community based organizations to ensure workers know their rights and to help employers comply with the law. The focus is on workers and industries most vulnerable to wage theft, health and safety violations, as well as retaliation. Since its inception in 2020, they have reached 1,750,000 workers and employers and have made 8,000,000 touch points. We're currently in the fifth iteration of CWAP. The work has been underway since July 2025.
There has been 50,700,000 awarded to 87 partners across the state for two years. Again, the work started in June 2025, and it is running through end of next fiscal year, June 2027. To date, the CBOs have engaged in our education to a quarter million workers through interactive tactics. This includes door to door, phone banking, outreach at events, and high traffic areas as well as meetings. In addition to these two way engage engagements, they have also helped with one way engagements through educational promotional tactics.
There have been three ten touch points through social media posts, distribution of flyers and mailers, and other educational promotional tactics. This outreach has occurred in 42 languages, 11 which are indigenous. And in addition to the outreach and education that they have participated in, they have also directly supported workers with addressing worker violations. This can include navigating, the complaint and claim processes within the state as well as helping them with demand letters for their employers. To date, since, July 2025, they have supported 1,000 workers directly with preparing or filing a complaint or claim as well as supported 1,100 workers with, alternative solutions such as drafting demand letters to their employers.
In addition to the direct outreach and education and direct support, there's a capacity building component for CWAP. There's training offered to make sure that the CBOs can support workers and also train worker leaders. Today, they have trained over 3,000 worker leaders as well as provided eight eighty five hours of technical assistance. This was mentioned in the last the UC Berkeley study that was completed in 2324 showed evidence that CWAP engaged workers had a higher level of understanding of their rights and knew how to access were government services better. And that report is available online.
Some changes that have occurred since now we're in the fifth iteration is substantively, there's not there's now broader engagement around labor law and worker rights as well as we've expanded the period performance. So this is the first year where we have two year, twenty four months period performance. And there was an open RFA at the 2024, and then the applications closed in January 2025. And out of the 121 applications that were received, 87 were awarded, and thus the grants that total $50,700,000 And the program service, again, began in July 2025, and then it's running through June 2027. Happy to take questions.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Alright. Let's go ahead. Any addition? Alright.
From our panel from our assembly members, questions?
Redner 10
No. Just, wanna acknowledge the great work that this program has been doing across the state and appreciate today's report.
Redner 17
Thank you so much, chair, and thanks for the presentation. Can you give us an example of some of the organizations that get funded through this? I think it's, you know, a really important program, especially for workers that, you know, need and work with, certain CBOs through through nontraditional ways, that you talked about. I know in my district, for instance, we have a number of day labor centers, and so I'm glad to see that this funding is is continuing. Do you wanna talk about any of the grantees?
Redner 32
Yeah. I could talk about I could highlight some of the partners that we have in the LA region and show an example of how it's been critical to work with these trusted messengers. So because one of the key things about this program is that we have a regional structure. So each region is led by a regional lead as well as the UC lead. For LA, we are funding several organizations and I'd be happy to provide a more detailed list of all the partners and what respective regions they're serving.
But in LA, one highlight that I wanted to share is that we are funding organizations that worked on the LA wildfire recovery and rebuilding. So that includes the DEPSCA, the LA Department of Public Health, so called COSH, and then there was one more that is escaping me. But through that partnership, we've been able to respond quickly with the, like, the needs in the region, in particular with the worker violations that we were seeing as a result of the rebuilding. So I could give you a more extensive list of all the partners for region and any other region if people are interested.
Redner 17
Yeah. Thanks for that. My budget staff was great and was able to get me a list for the LA area, but would be great to see a statewide list. So, our offices, our district offices across the state, and I'm sure other assembly members do this, know, who our partners can be for those trusted messengers for for our workers who are in some of the most vulnerable settings, especially what's going on right now at the federal level with ICE raids and immigration raids. So I see some of them now in the audience, some of our CBOs.
But, yeah, I just wanted to say thanks for for continuing this program.
Redner 1
Yes. If you can get all of the members the list statewide of the partners. And this also came up last year. I remember it was quite a robust conversation with one of our colleagues who is now on the on the, committee, this year. But, it really rang a bell with me because all these different topics intersect.
So when we talk about workers' compensation, of course, having workers who are safe while they do their jobs is gonna lower those numbers. And making sure that workers have the education and the information they need no matter what site they're working on is essential. I just had a visit today from some of the Eaton fire victims who actually are now organizing themselves to to navigate what's happening more than a year later. And what came up was the workers who were working out there, removing, all the contaminants. And, again, when we think about that, there was such a push to do it so quickly.
There's two or three things that came up just today, which is, are there any standards for that removal? Did they have the right health protocols? Were those enforced on it? And and we saw what happened in 09/11 with workers, many of our firefighters out on those sites. So these
Redner 1
essential CWAP. And I I said crop by mistake, but I really you know, when we think about the Central Valley and workers and we think about the temperatures and the heat and the chemicals, these are all areas where a trusted men messengers, where advocates, where community members can come in and say, you know, you are entitled to a heat break or a water break or a bathroom break. And these are really important because we know that many of these jobs where wage theft can occur and others really are some of our most vulnerable issue workers that we see. So I appreciate the program. I know we have increased the dollars, and we're able to keep 13,000,000 last year.
And I think it's big value to our state. So with that, I have no other questions. Any more comments here? Alright. We'll, hear from our public.
Done. Thirty seconds or under, please.
Redner 33
We decided to bring the organizations to you too. Good afternoon, Sherquirk Silva. My name is George, and I'm actually a constituent of yours, Assemblyman Merkelosa, in the beautiful city of Los Angeles in Lincoln Heights, and I serve as a campaign coordinator for the California Coalition for Worker Power. The organizations behind me are community based organizations who do this outreach from the all throughout the state, from the northernmost point of California to the pockets in between and all the way down to the certainmost point of San Diego and below. So we really just wanna request and ask for 30,000,000 per each year for five years to fully fund CWAP for the program.
Thank you.
Redner 34
Yeah. And my name is Park Eunhae. I'm Korean, and I'm pronouncing Korean. My name is Jin Kim. I'm gonna translate I'm from Koreatown Immune Working Alliance.
Yeah. I live in Cerrito. I'm a assembly member with Cursor District. Yes. I'm a worker.
I'm a mom of three children. Yeah. I'm an immigrant, and because of type of my the work I do, it's hard to understand the the the labor right.
Redner 34
of this program, you know, I'll able to raise my voice and fight for my right.
Redner 15
Good afternoon, madam chair, members of the, subcommittee. My name is George. I am the workers' rights program director at Valley Voices serving the communities of Kings County. Through the California worker outreach we have reached over 10,000 interactions last year despite program, despite program, interruptions. This year, we're on track to reach over 14,000 workers, and we have already helped 72 workers file wage claims, retaliation complaints, and referrals to workers' compensation.
Our focus continues to be the avian flu that is currently affecting our dairy workers. We're here to request that the program continue at 30,000,000 per year until its sunsets in 2031. Thank you.
Redner 36
Good evening, chair Quirk Silber and members of the budget committee. My name is Darren Lewis. I'm a regional program manager with the Southern California Black Worker Hub. In the interest of time, I'm here to give comment on behalf of the eight and now organizations doing outreach and education work through CWAP and the 25 organizations that are here today. So collectively, through CWAP, we have reached over 4,000,000 workers throughout the state, and we have had over 800,000 interactive conversations in 46 different languages to help those workers know and assert their rights.
So with the per with the current political climate last year, the legislature passed senate bill five seven eight to codify CWAP into law. We now need to ensure that this program is funded, and we urge you to include $30,000,000 per year for five years in this year's budget to allow CWAP to continue without programmatic disruptions. Thank you so much.
Redner 37
Hi, senator Cort Silva. I'm Alexis Teodoro, the worker rights director for the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. We work with mainly in the Empire, but there's times where we represent day laborers in Orange County, in your district right now, actually. I ventured ten years ago at a community meeting put together by the Los Amigos of Orange County group, who at the time was led by late late Orange County Latino activist Amina V. May he rest in peace.
That organization has a model, We like to help in English. So we're coming back again this year asking for your help one more time, senator. We would like for your support to make sure that there's $30,000,000 per year for the next five years for workers. So let me just tell you about the case in your dis in your district. Unfortunately, there's been a spike in wage theft and immigration related threats of day laborers in the Inland Empire, Pomona, and in Orange County, and in your district of the 67 Assembly District.
So with this support, we will continue to support your constituents. Thank you for your support and for your continued support to make this happen.
Redner 38
Good afternoon, chair and members. Thank you so much. My name is Kim Robinson. I am the policy analyst with Black Women for Wellness Action Project and Black Women for Wellness. And I'm here as one of the grantees that receive funding.
And so when California invests in worker safety, education, and workers' rights, we are investing in prevention, dignity, and long term strength of our workforce. And through CWAP, Black Women for Wellness and Black Women for Wellness Action Project have seen over 10,000 members in the community. We see members in Los Angeles County as well as San Joaquin County. And so I urge you all to please continue the funding. As we have mentioned, we're asking for 30,000,000 per year for the next five years to continue the support to the organizations and to California as well.
Thank you.
Redner 39
Okay. Hello. My name is Reynaldo Rodriguez from MiXtik indigenous community organizing project serving the counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura. And what I do is I work with the indigenous people working in the fields, picking strawberries and other, strawberries among other vegetables. I speak Mixtec, and, many who speak this language do not speak or write Spanish.
And so what the what CWOP does, it helps us to help them with their theft wages and what we're seeing with the rates and whatnot. And so, this helps us keep fighting, and what we do is what we are doing here is asking for your support for the continued support for the program. Thank you.
Redner 40
Big high difference. Good afternoon, chair Quicksilva and the board, sorry, budget committee. My name is Yelira Rojo. I am a program coordinator at the Cambodian family and also a constituent of chair Quicksilva. We our organization supports refugees and immigrants all throughout Orange County, which is a much more diverse area than people give us credit for.
And with the funding of CWAP, we have been able to reach all those communities, including the Cambodian Khmer speaking population, which isn't always often reached. With the help of CWAP, we have been able to speak to thousands, if not tens of thousands, of our very impacted immigrant communities, both the Cambodian speaking population and the Spanish speaking populations and other languages as well. Thank
Redner 18
Community committee committee members. My name is Francisca Camarillo, community organizer with Museco Indigena community organizing project, who is part of the California Coalition for Workers' Power. I'm here in strong support of continued funding for CWAP, program for the next five years. Without this program, farm workers will face preventable health disparities. I am based off, directly in SLO County and Paso Robles, which is very well known for their wine.
And, many of the farm workers are just starting to get a lot of this information, so we're just starting, for them, learning about all of their rights. And without the support, they're not gonna be able to get that information, which is, going to prevent health disparities. So we do ask for that support. Farm workers are the backbone of California agriculture industry, making it the fourth largest economy in the world right now, for $2,044.25, 4,000,000,000,000. Thank you.
Redner 41
Good afternoon. My name is Ashley De La Rosa. I'm representing Bendis Neals partnership, a stay away organization serving janitor, custodians, airport, and security workers. Since, across Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, Palo Alto, San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento, and expanding to San Francisco. Since 2025, our members have endured displacement, unlawful unemployment, natural disasters, unlawful ICE enforcement.
And through CWAP, we have been aiding our members with over 3,000 informational materials and supporting them through these difficult times. We urge you to continue to support sustainable funding to continue CWAP. Thank you. Thank you.
Redner 42
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is pastor David Green, and I'm representing the Wave Research Center. We are located in the Inland Empire, Victorville area, Apple Valley, California. But our agency has been part of the trusted messenger network for over five years now. And the CWOC program that we've been a part of for the past about seven, eight months, during that time, we've already reached over 20,000 individuals.
And we are proud to be a part of this initiative. What we are here today is to continue to ask for support because we understand that we don't need a break in our funding. And we also understand that this funding isn't coming from the general budget. We wanna kinda make a reminder that it's coming from the money that has already been received through penalties and things like that. So we just wanna make sure we highlight that, and we've already emphasized the importance of this pro project, and we thank you for this time.
Okay?
Redner 43
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Sonara. I'm the program manager at The Cambodian Family. We are the only nonprofit organizations that serve over forty years in Orange County for the Cambodian and Hispanics community. So C WAP is very important to us because we want to up continue to uplift our community that we serve by keeping the employees happy.
When we serve the employee, we serve their family, and we continue to support them, the next generation. I urge you to support and continue your support, and this is so important to us. Thank you so much.
Redner 44
Good afternoon, madam chair and members. My name is Manuel Pasar Reguin with the California Immigrant Policy Center. In support of the California worker outreach programs, the ask of 30,000,000 over five years. This is a critical program that ensures that marginalized and hard to reach workers, particularly immigrant workers, who are under attack under the federal administration, receive crucial education and engagement on their labor rights. This program is extremely important to ensure that workers have the resources and assistance they need at this time.
Thank you.
Redner 45
Greetings, greetings, madam chairwoman, and everyone else on the committee. My name Cynthia Thornburg Ruffin. I'm with the Earth Lodge Center for Transformation. We're our fifth year in with the CWAP grant. We reach out we are, a 10,000 square feet of urban lush jungle in Long Beach, California.
Last year alone, we served about 3,500, community members, all mostly black and LGBTQ oriented, and we touched 2,000, members with our CWAP training. We have become we are and have become wonderful trusted messengers in the community, and we are completely down for, the money continuing to come in for CWOM.
Redner 47
Hi. Good afternoon, committee and chair, Kirk Silva. I'm Mary Nguyen from the California Healthy Nailsong Collaborative with, servicing members in both, assembly member Kirk Silva's and Liz Ortega's district. We work with the Nailsong workforce comprising of Vietnamese immigrant and refugee women who have faced unsafe working conditions, employ employment misclassification, and harmful, chemical exposures in the workplace. And CWAP has been vital to our program in training 200 members, 200 of our community members each year for the past five years, totaling up to a thousand members that, have been given training to learn about their rights as workers and to maintain and protect themselves in the workplace.
We're going on six years to train on more, of the Nyeongsong workforce, hopefully, totaling up to 1,200 Nyeongsong workers and owners. And so we hope that the committee and chair will continue the $30,000,000 a year funding for each year for the next five years so that our workers can live in a safe work in a safer and healthier environment and also live and thrive in their communities. Thank you.
Redner 20
Hello, esteemed committee. My name is Jardina Aaron. I'm research director for the MCTF, the Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund, and also board chair at the Earth Launch Center, the organization that you just heard from. At the MCTF, we're a watchdog group in the janitorial industry to stop exploitation for non unionized janitors. And through the efforts of CWAD, we've been able to educate and bring Know Your Rights training to over 4,000 janitors alone where they work and also, when possible, in their home to be able to continue the education.
We continue to support. Five years long, 30,000,000 strong. Thank you for your support for CWAP over the years.
Redner 46
Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Gloria Arita and Los Magalong. We are representing Filipino Workers Center. My name is again.
My name is Lotte Magalam. Good afternoon, every everyone. We are representing Filipino Workers Center. I work as an organizer doing outreach and education for domestic workers, especially caregivers across the Southern California. Through our outreach, we reached thousands of, Filipino immigrants workers who often do not know their rights or where to go to for health.
Seawalk plays a critical role educating workers, helping them report wage theft, and protecting them from retaliation. This program allows organizations like ours to reach more workers and support our communities. We respectfully ask for your support to continue funding this important project. Thank you, and good afternoon. Thank you.
Redner 48
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Leonard Brown. I'm the community organizer with WorkSafe. We are the regional lead here in Northern California. WorkSafe, we have our BWI, Black Workers Initiative, where we educate blacks on our history and, the workforce.
We also work with returning citizens because we wanna make sure we move those individuals into work and keep them employed. But right now, we're currently we're suing GO of their conditions of the detention, the detention centers. So I just wanted to say that. So it is important. The the the money goes to good use.
I just say it like that.
Redner 50
and members. My name is Kay Liang, and I work with Chinese Progressive Association based in San Francisco. And I'm speaking today as a cons constituent of assembly member Mahaney and ask for all of your support to fund CWOP. So we conduct outreach to over 6,000 low income Chinese immigrant workers each year in the Bay Area and also just like support a 100 workers to file wage claims to LCO or negotiate directly with their employers. And we outreach workers, like, in the overall industries, including domestic workers, restaurant workers who have no access to worker rights information in Chinese elsewhere.
So I hope we can just, like, continue supporting these workers in the long term. Thank you.
Redner 16
Thank you. Good afternoon. Francisco Rodriguez with the Monterey Bay Central Labor Council. We are the regional lead for the Central Coast. We're here to ask for your support in funding the CIWAP program.
You've heard what a great program it is, and so we hope to get your support. Thank you.
Redner 35
Hi, everyone. My name is Rocio Gonzales. I represent MCTF. Our organization is dedicated to support janitorial workers who lack union representation. Through this program, CIWA, we have been successful recover over 500,000, dollars in wages since 2022.
And, also, we are being provided a scholarship for workers that are not support. Please, being continued to support this program for CYAD.
Redner 39
Okay. Hello. My name is Evelalia Mendoza. I'm a community organizer with the Mixtec Indigenous Community Organizing Project. Today, I wanna share why I'm here.
In 2008, I worked in a strawberry fields, and I wasn't paid for the many hours that I would work. I would work ten hours and I would only be paid for four hours. And a few years ago, five years ago, I met Miko and like many of the like and many like myself have their rights violated and their wages stolen. So I ask you to fund the program so we can continue help teaching more people about their rights. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Do we have anybody else wanting to speak after the last gentleman? If we do, please line up because we're gonna close it out after this last gentleman. Anybody else? Alright.
The last gentleman there will be our last speaker.
Redner 51
One gentleman. Yes. Madam chair, members, Noe Potomol with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, a proud partner of CWAP. We align with the Worker Power Coalition in requesting the continued funding of the program. Thank you very much.
Redner 52
Good afternoon. My name is Fanelli Milan, senior organizer with the One Economic Opportunity Center. Through CWAP, we have been able to support workers like like Julian, day labor from Riverside, who was unfortunately assaulted by his employer and threatened by you know, the employ the employer threatened him, with calling ICE. So we just wanna highlight that story and ask for your support. Thank you.
Redner 53
Good afternoon. My name is Angel. I'm the health and safety organizer for the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, and we've been getting CWAP for the last six years. So we just wanna continue doing the work and asking for your support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Alright. That will close out our public, comment speakers. And I think as noted already, these diverse voices that are coming up to represent, workers across the state of California are not only important, but essential, particularly in this time, as we see, as was just mentioned, this last threat of calling ICE or potential raids that are not just raids that we've seen in one area. We've seen them across the California from the Central Valley to restaurants and many others.
So with that, we're pleased to have this item in front of us, and we will do our best to push it forward. I think that we'll close this item. We have now done items five, six, and seven. We will let our esteemed panelists exit, and we're going to move to item number one, unfair labor practices. Fair labor practices.
I need to get up for a second here because my aura ring tells me I should stretch.
Redner 1
guys didn't know I used to be an elementary school teacher. Right? It's time. Alright. Alright.
We are going to be presenting item number one, public employee relation relations board and the labor development agency. Issue number one, unfair labor practices, a b two eighty eight, a budget change proposal. And, again, if you all, as you speak, introduce yourself, that would be great. And we're ready to go.
Redner 54
Hi. Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Thank you. I am Susan Davey, the executive director for the Public Employment Relations Board. Assembly bill two eight eight seeks to expand the jurisdiction of the Public Employment Relations Board to allow private sector workers who were or would be covered by the National Labor Relations Act or the NLRA as of 01/01/2025 to vindicate their rights and organize and collective collectively bargain under circumstances specified.
Those circumstances would primarily arise if their NLRA coverage was repealed or narrowed, its enforcement was enjoined, or if the NLRB failed to act within a specified time frame or otherwise expressly ceded jurisdiction. The NLRB handles approximately 2,600 cases in California annually. PERV estimates about 10% would migrate to our jurisdiction under a b two eight eight. PERB currently has 77 positions and would not be able to absorb this workload. PERB requests $5,500,000 in 22 position in fiscal year 2627 and 7,040,000.00 in 31 positions in twenty twenty seven twenty twenty eight and ongoing from the general fund.
And in addition, the labor and workforce development agency is requesting a $1,000,000 one time in general fund for attorney general litigation cost. The NLRB acting general counsel has filed a lawsuit in The US district course Eastern Court Of California to seek invalidation, and an injunction was granted partially on 12/26/2025.
Redner 55
Nick Schroeder from the LAO. Considering the court's, in partial injunction, we think that the agenda's recommendation to hold item open makes a lot of sense. The administration can rethink how the proposed resources might need to be changed in light of the court's actions.
Redner 1
Thank you. Appreciate that. Any questions? Assembly member Kaluza. Speaking of hold item open, I forgot to say that on item number five, which is our sub TIFF.
We will be holding that item open and depending on how things go with item number five, we may also use the tool at our disposal to bring that item back. Just I know everybody's left, but I forgot to say that on that item. So on this, holding the item open, I have no questions.
Redner 17
Thank you, chair. I mean, this is my first time, on this committee, so I'm hearing this item for the first time. Can you just give me, obviously saw the materials here, about kind of, like, what's going on with this implementation of a b two eight eight, and what we're discussing today. Can you just give us an overview and elaborate a little bit
Redner 54
more? Sure. No problem. So, this would be when president Trump has the the the current NLRB lacks a quorum, and so they haven't been able to adjudicate cases for the private sector workers since 2025. And so this would give the jurisdiction to the public employment relations board for California cases.
Redner 17
With the injunction, are is there anything that California can can enforce on our own?
Redner 54
Purpose may only assume jurisdiction over private sector disputes when the NLRB has expressly conceded jurisdiction or there's a specific, injunction on a particular matter or very rare circumstances. So there's not much currently.
Redner 17
Okay. And how does this partial injunction, and the lawsuit impact the BCP?
Redner 54
Okay. So as the litigation progresses, we'll have a better idea as to, what resources we would need and when we would need them.
Redner 17
Okay. So I'm getting the sense here that there's not much you can say right now.
Redner 54
Not much right now. We're waiting to see what the court process turns out. Okay.
Redner 17
Okay. Then I guess I can't ask any questions because there's not much that I can say.
Redner 17
No. It's okay. I mean, I think it's just I think one of the interesting things that I learned in this in the materials that I I didn't know that was quite pointed out as everyone has been seeing a lot of the actions by the or the inaction by the NLRB, and I didn't realize that it was a result of not having a quorum. K. And so can you walk me through how that happened?
I know, obviously, president Trump, is not appointing anyone so that they have a quorum. How long has this existed? I'm just trying to understand whether or not there's there's anything here more that we can do because, obviously, it's an issue for for all the work that we're doing.
Redner 54
Yes. Of course. So without a quorum, it's it's been more than a year. So, these cases are just sitting at the moment for private sector workers.
Redner 1
Do you know if that is true, if the AGE's office has been engaged in this issue? Alright. That's something we can follow-up as well. Yeah. Thank you.
Redner 54
Apologies. Our general counsel has informed me there is a quorum now, but the cases are largely
Redner 54
Our general counsel Felix de la Torrejes informed me that we do have a quorum now for California.
Redner 1
Okay. We do have a quorum now for California. Yes. So some of these cases then can proceed?
Redner 1
Okay. Well, that's good news. Any other additional questions or comments? Alright. That being said, let's go ahead and see if the public would like to weigh in.
Seeing none, that will close that item. Oh, you guys have to be fast around here.
Redner 48
From WorkSafe. As I say, at WorkSafe, we like to hold employees accountable, and we understand that, you know, the this agency has been on, you know, a lot of stress lately. And so we try to
Redner 48
We try to fill in. We get a lot of people coming to us, and so we know the importance of their work. So we just wanna we would just wanna support them. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. And I know our chair of our public employees, Tina McKinnon is very invested in this as this has come through her committee, and this is actually in response to her legislation AB two eighty eight. So with that, of course, our shared goals are to make sure that people get some kind of response and can get through their cases. With that, we're going to close the item. Thank you.
Alright. Next, we have EDD Next Modernization. We did talk about some of this last week. This will be continued. We know this is a a major system overhaul.
And if you can touch on I believe you said two decades ago it started Hi. With
Redner 1
Alright. So go ahead and introduce yourself as you speak, and just give us a little context in that sense.
Redner 14
Yeah. Good afternoon, madam chair, members of the committee. Thank you for having us here to talk about the EDDNEX proposal included in the governor's budget. The proposal requests a 145,500,000 in 2627 funded by the general fund and the unemployment compensation disability fund to continue the ED and X customer service improvement effort. This will be the fifth year of the modernization of ED's benefit systems and services.
This request also includes a reversion of 70,500,000.0 general fund previously appropriated for the integrated claims management system project as these funds are no longer needed in 2627 given the revised phasing of the overall EDD Next ICMS effort. The fifth year request includes funding for the following work streams. All the although the BCP, as I mentioned, contains minimal funding for the integrated claims management system, savings from prior year is being leveraged for that. 2627 will continue the multiyear replacement of our core claim systems and implementation of the modernized claim processing capabilities. With the contract award that, recently happened in February 2026, Vendor onboarding is occurring occurring as we speak, and ICMS will begin to focus on modernizing the DIPFL programs as part of the integrated claims management system in 2627.
Another component of the proposal is the shared customer portal. That is a easier and more secure login portal for, all benefit programs, includes password recovery, two factor authentication. The funding in 2627 will allow to continue the department to conduct ongoing maintenance operations for SCP. There's also a component for the document management system. That is our imaging and data capture document and content management remittance system.
In 2627, the department plans to complete the tax form of remittance system replacement as well as data migration and maintenance operations for prior phases that we've implemented. The integrated concept contact center, which is the next work stream included in this proposal, is to allow the department to implement IVR changes resulting from ICMS and continue maintenance and operations for already previously delivered features, items such as self-service options that strengthen our call center, scheduled callbacks for UI callers, text messaging updates for our DIPFL customers, virtual hold, claim status without having to speak to an agent. All of those previously delivered enhancements will be things that we continue to fund moving forward. Fraud prevention and data analytics is another work stream included in this proposal. The funding in 2627 will allow the department to complete implementation of the identity proofing solution for our DI and PFL claimants, continue the incremental rollout of logging and data analytic tools, and then also continue MNO for previously delivered solutions.
The transformation office supports the overall EDD Next modernization effort. That includes things like project management services, quality assurance, quality control, customer experience teams, governments, independent verification validation, all those types of oversight and support contracts that support IT projects. And then the last component of the proposal in 2627 are what we consider our vendor services. Those are technological solutions included as part of the proposal based on recommendations previously made from the state auditor, the strike team, and the legislature, which enhance fraud prevention, manage help the department of management workloads, and improve the overall customer experience. Thank you for allowing me to present the proposal.
Myself and my colleague, Ajit Gurn, our CIO, are here to answer any questions you may have.
Redner 58
Yep. Thank you, madam chair. Brian Mueller with the LAO. As you've heard, the project is entering its fifth year, and most of the work streams of the project have been completed, although it's currently the the most complex and costly portion of the project is just beginning as mister Horl has described. And so mindful of this, we've stressed the need for continued legislative oversight over the project.
And last year, we suggested a number of oversight tools that could be implemented through budget built language, and we stand ready to continue working with staff and, the administration, to explore those kinds of options, in language as the budget moves forward.
Redner 17
Thank you, chair. I mean, I think, you know, I appreciate the update, and I think, you know, we went through a lot of this extensively through the last hearing as well. You know, I think my my concerns, around the implementation of EDD Next, also just revolve around what I mentioned last time around the paper applications. Right? Know know whether or not you've had a time to give that thought from when we last had you here before us.
How are we gonna make sure we don't leave folks behind who are continuing to use paper applications, who don't feel comfortable with technology? You heard from workers who have, you know, just in the item prior who, you know, have need need an interpretation or translation. We have, you know, seniors who don't like technology. Have you guys had a chance to talk about that from our last since our last hearing?
Redner 57
Absolutely. As I remember, and and and we, treat all our paper applicants as equally as an online claimants as well. So in for paper applicants, what we have done so far is we have converted many of our forms over in over 14 languages. For unemployment insurance, we converted over 250 forms into 14 languages. Same thing we are doing for disability and paid family leave as well.
In addition to that, we made paper application for unemployment extremely much easier for our claimants to fill in. We have a big project ongoing right now as part of VDD Next, which is the document management system modernization. This project scans the incoming paper forms and then quickly read the data from those forms and put it into the system for quicker and and easier, processing of the applications. With that said, what we have we'll have the capabilities to process the forms coming in quickly, much faster to provide better services to our paper applicants as well. These are some of the tools that we have implemented.
In addition to that, we're still working with our public affairs branch to simplify the questions that we have on the paid family leave as well as the disability insurance applications as well.
Redner 17
Okay. So just to clarify, the paper applications won't go away even after you finish implementation. Constituents can still apply through this new program as well as on the paper applications. Does this modernization also include improvements to your call center?
Redner 57
100%. Yes. So, as my colleague mentioned, we are making massive investment in our call centers as well for a disability and paid family leave. We have already migrated a decade old call centers to a newer platform called Amazon Connect platform for unemployment insurance, and, we are also working right now to move it to a better platform as well. We are just implemented a new technology called Pindrop, to to provide better services to our customers.
More self-service features have been offered as well. So, yes, EDD Next does include a comprehensive modernization of our telephone systems as well.
Redner 17
The and the last thing I didn't get to ask about last time was, obviously, you started working on this five years ago. You know, a lot of AI and technology has obviously become, you know, much more accessible and readily available. But also knowing that there's a lot of conversation happening right now around also how do we have guardrails and protections against AI access to data from our constituents that are very sensitive. Can you tell us, is AI being integrated into EDD Next? Can you talk about what new systems you're implementing here that we should be aware of?
Redner 57
No. Thank you. That's a great question. So in EDD, we have three basic principle. The first one is we'll always have human in the loop.
So whenever we implement something on AI, we will never let it make a benefit decision. We'll always have our employees make that decision. So that's number one principle. The second we have is we are focusing more on operations to reduce our cost and focusing less on on the on the using AI for our claimants because we wanna make sure we abide by the new policies from the CDT and work very closely with Department of General Services as well to implement the general policies that we have in place. Keeping that in mind, for our call centers, we are using a chatbot, which is leveraging AI.
But that AI, the questions are mostly about, leveraging the data that is already in there. There is no generative AI being used to automatically answer questions, based on what the claimant is asking. It basically transforms the question. So example is, where is my money if a claimant asks? Gen AI would tell the claimant where the claimant's check is.
So we are using it to answer the questions from the claimant, but not generative AI, which will be generating answers completely differently using the LLMs.
Redner 17
Okay. So just so I can verify. So EDD is only using it for the chatbot purposes only. Are and you're saying you're not using it for any analysis of any EDD claims and their validity?
Redner 57
So we have, three use cases for which we are using AI today. One I mentioned as, is the chatbot scenario. The other scenario we are using it to validate the identities of the claimants that are coming in. So we have a product called Thomson Reuters and ID. Me that we are using, and those products have some features of AI being used to validate where the claimant is accessing EDD services.
For example, is the claimant accessing it from out of country? Are they using a computer that has already been back blacklisted? So they use some general AI in there to make sure we can prevent the fraudsters from accessing EDD services. So these are the three tools that we use AI for.
Redner 17
I I appreciate you sharing that, and and I don't think you answered my question, though. Is or or any is there any technology being used to analyze the claims themselves whether or not they're valid?
Redner 57
No. We are not using AI to validate any claims if they're valid or not. No determination eligibilities are are being made using AI at this point in time.
Redner 17
Okay. Thanks for answering that. And and I think from my end, you know, I'm not, you know, against technology. You know, there's obviously lots of benefits for how do we increase efficiency, how do we, free up, you know, the ability for staff to focus on really complicated cases, you know, so I understand that the investment and and that there's, you know, just a bigger conversation that we're having right now. I think what, is interesting with a lot of these large investments that the state is making is, obviously, I'm seeing it in the year five.
Right? I'm sure a lot has changed from when you first started implementing this. A lot of, I'm sure, revisions and changes to to what we're implementing now. I think that the main thing I'm getting at here is it's the disclosure. Right?
It's the disclosure. It's our us knowing that you are doing and using AI and us knowing exactly what it is we are funding using taxpayer dollars, whereas we're managing public records of folks who are, you know, in a having a really hard time. And so I think that's just a a general comment that I would make to e d EDD as you guys come before us. The disclosure of the types of technology that you are implementing, especially the use of AI, would be really helpful for us to know upfront. You know, I'm, you know, not making any, you know, statements here about the technology.
I'm trying to, you know, be be give give a neutral stance on that part, just trying to understand, you know, looking at this from a a fiscal impact and the the the budget impact, which is a goal of this committee, but just disclosing it, I think, is gonna be super important. That transparency so the public can hear exactly what's being used with their dollars is is really important.
Redner 57
Completely agree with you. If I can make a comment there, we work very closely with California Department of Technology. So every year, we did a survey that we have to answer to tell them the tools that we are using that are that are based on AI. So we are we are fully disclosing every single thing in Eddity that is using AI as part of that survey every year.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you. So this project is a project that you mentioned started five years ago. And am I correct in that it's almost, in the end, gonna be about close to a billion dollars in total price?
Redner 1
So that's a huge investment in the state. Correct. And as I understand, some of the most complex part are going to be implemented this last year.
Redner 1
Right. So so with that part and I do appreciate your commentary about some of the tools that will be able to be attained really by the users as whether it's callbacks, all of these, where where they're they are in a process, all of those things are very important. Because we've heard firsthand from constituents that frustration of where they are in the system, all of these things. So I appreciate that. On the in this BCP, on the reversion of the 70,000,000, can you speak to that?
Redner 14
Yeah. Thank you, madam chair, for the question. As I mentioned in in my overview, the the reversion was from, prior year funding that we received that we had hoped to use towards the ICMS contract upon execution with the revised phasing of the project delivery as we talked about with DIPFL going first. There's not a need in 2627 for the general fund component, which is that 70 and a half million because ICMS will initially be, again, focused on just disability insurance and paid family leave. So we're leveraging the prior disability insurance funding that we got to encumber the that ICMS the that portion of the ICMS contract.
And then down the road, we would seek additional funding as we, look to implement UI.
Redner 1
That might be a little nerve racking depending on our budgeted few years, but, but we don't often see reversions in this committee. That being said, the LAO mentioned over site, and I certainly and please, this is not an EDD thing. As we have talked in this budget, and I wanted to do a stand alone hearing on this, and I have not, is I wanted to really focus on technology with all of state administration and each department because I think we are going to see well over trillion dollars in department after department and how we're using. Now, of course, we know that technology really is in its infancy as far as two decades of these, you know, major systems, and they do have to be upgraded. So I don't have any complaint of the upgrade.
I know that that's I mean, what is our solution if we don't invest these dollars? We're gonna have a system that crashes, and we don't want that. But I do think it's worthy of the legislative members having timely updates. So we'll be working with some type of language for that. But a hearing as an accountability hearing, singling out EDD, It's something that I have talked to the accountability chair about just to get a grasp on how many dollars we are spending as a state.
This is not unique to the state. We have school systems. We have hospital systems. We have public safety systems that are all in the same place. Oh, I remember being in a hearing many years ago as a a legislator, probably well before the pandemic, talking about systems like this and can they speak to other each other not just within, like, say, EDD, but out, you know, like, say, social service system being able to speak to a public education because you have an intersection of students.
We're not even close to do close to that as I know. Yet, we know other countries have systems like that. I believe they gave the example of Canada. At that point, again, it was many years ago they were talking about the cost would be millions of dollars. Now, I wouldn't even want to imagine how much it would be to be able to engage in a system like that, but that would that would be immense when you look at foster students who are in social services and they're in the public schools, and can you be in a timely way even with public safety?
We have a long way to go, but we certainly need to get a handle on how much we're spending and how long these systems are taking to build. I was on Middle See a little smile there. Middle Mile, Mile. Which is our Golden State Network. And that was gonna connect us all through California from every space in California with this network and sat on many, many meetings related to that.
And, you know, these systems, we expect them to be completed in and accomplished within a certain amount of year, and yet we find that they can take many years. So that system, Middle Mile, is gonna outlive me. But that being said, we appreciate you being here and answering our questions. And do we have anybody from the public who would like to speak on this?
Redner 59
Madam chair. I'm Katie Valenzuela on behalf of the California Network for Immigrant and Worker Justice. We think that the implementation of EDD now is a great opportunity to address a policy issue that's existed for the last fifty years or so, which is that undocumented workers don't have access to unemployment benefits that they paid for. Know that's a much bigger conversation than you're having right now, but we have been working with mister Robert Garcia on a onetime budget ask so that those folks who are impacted by immigration enforcement can see income replacement and would love to be have a continued conversation with you and the rest of the committee as the budget winds up. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Appreciate that. Anybody else speaking to this item? Seeing none, we will be closing this item. Thank you.
Redner 1
And that is gonna take us to item number three. And I'm sorry, item number two, EDD next modernization is also an item left open. And, we will go to paid family leave.
Redner 14
Yes. Thank you again, madam chair, members of the committee. I think I neglected to to mention my name at the last issue, but I'm Caleb Orrill. I'm the admin deputy for EDD. Again, thanks for having us here.
So, SB five ninety paid family leave eligible eligibility care for designated persons. This proposal requests, 532,000 unemployment compensation disability fund in 2627, 1,483,000.000 disability insurance funding in 2728, and approximately three hundred and forty two thousand disability insurance funding in 2829 and ongoing to implement the changes, required by senate bill five ninety. That senate bill, beginning 07/01/2028, SB five ninety will expand the eligible relationships for PFL care claims to include designated persons defined as any care recipient related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. The bill requires an individual requesting those PFL benefits under this provision to identify the designated person they are providing care to and under penalty of perjury to attest how they are related by blood or how the individual's association with the designated person is equivalent to that family relationship. The funding by the department will be leveraged for required form changes to PFL online forms and paper forms and associated programming, changes to our IT system to process the the associated legislative change.
Thank you for allowing me to present and here for any questions you may have.
Redner 1
Assemblymember? That's what happens when there's only only two of two of us. Yes.
Redner 17
Can you just talk and I know we talked about this last time. What's the impact to the response times for paid family leave on this item?
Redner 14
Yeah. Thank you for your question. So our our expectation is care claims, which is what this piece of legislation was targeting, are are the smaller portion of the PFL claims that get filed. PFL, I think we talked about it during the last during the oversight hearing. PFL covers an individual that wants to bond with a new child to provide care for a seriously ill family member.
The bonding side of our PFL claims is about 85% of the claims get filed annually. Care is about 15%. We're estimating in in talks with other states that have implemented similar expansions of their PFL programs that that we will see, like, less than a percent increase in overall in overall PFL claims. So I guess the the long way to get to an answer to your question is I I don't think we expect to see a measurable increase in workload tied to this nor do we expect to see any impact to us being able to respond timely to PFL claimants.
Redner 17
Got it. Thank you. That's helpful. I don't have any other questions, madam chair.
Redner 1
As we spent a good amount of time today on the SIBTIF program and we saw a program that was changed and then this huge increase, I know it's not the same, very different, but also with just paid family leave. I can't remember. It was last week we talked about it, but in the last year or two years, you saw quite a bit of increase in pay paid family leave. Is that correct?
Redner 14
So there there's been definitely more interest in the program due to other legislation, SB nine fifty one primarily that increased the wage replacement levels in both PFL and SDI. Those increases in wage replacement levels we have seen some increases in claims being filed, because it it went from 50 to 60% wage replacement levels to 70 to 90%. Right.
Redner 1
So less than a percent seems like a pretty small estimate compared to what we've seen in those two programs.
Redner 14
Yes. But yes. You are correct, madam chair. Again, I would just say that care claims overall as a population of the total PFL claims that get filed are the the much significantly smaller population. And this expansion of the program to allow designated family members, again, based on experiences that other states have seen, we don't expect to see a very measurable increase in additional care claims being filed.
Redner 1
Yeah. Because in all three programs, and I know there's cheerleaders of all three programs, so if you're watching this, please don't get the wrong intention. I said it last week under paid family leave. I'm a complete supporter of parents bonding with their children and taking the time off that is that they are allowed under law. And it would be the same thing with the workers' comp and also with this expansion.
My concerns are people who are taking advantage of it either because they're being told they can or, like I said, I mentioned the influencer issue last year last week, I should say. And that is a real thing because I may and I know our phones hear us. Yes. I know you hear me. Because when I talk about these things, these ads pop pop up.
So, you know, so it's out there. So I would say in the future, just keep an eye on those because that is something that I want everybody to get the benefits that they have earned and are entitled to. It's just I also wanna protect the state where we can. Alright. With that, do we have anybody from the public that would like to speak?
Seeing nobody running up to the mic, any last comments on paid family leave? Alright. Then we are gonna close that item, and we will go to our last item. What? Oh, this item will be left open.
Oh, sorry. I keep forgetting to say that. This item will be left open. Do do you
Redner 3
wanna make a last comment? Alright. So we are on our last item of today, displaced oil and gas worker fund.
Redner 14
So yet again, thank you for having us here to talk about this item. This item, as as, referenced in the agenda, the agenda lays the issue out really well from our perspective. As there is no proposal in the governor's budget related to this, myself, my colleague are here to answer any questions you may have about the displaced oil and gas worker program fund.
Redner 17
My gosh. Your presentation was so short. I was still reading this. But so this was only a onetime general fund. So you're saying that this program is gonna end.
Is that essentially?
Redner 17
Okay. Do you know how many workers applied for this or what what the how many how many people are benefiting from this program? If you guys could just give a general overview, I'd appreciate it.
Redner 49
Sure. My name is Javier Romero. I'm deputy director of EDD's Workforce Services branch. Thank you for the question. Currently, we have 518 individuals enrolled.
The goal is 1,725.
Redner 17
1,700 Yes. And 85. So only 518 workers applied. So you have a lot of monies not spent.
Redner 49
That's right. We're currently the what was total awarded was 27,700,000.0.
Redner 17
Oh, wow. Could you have an analysis for why you feel like the the uptick of the uptick of this program wasn't what we anticipated?
Redner 49
There was a ramp up time because this is a very unique program. But we do think that over the next few months, we do expect a great ramp up to the enrollments and rest of the year of the expenditures to increase sharply. That's what we do anticipate.
Redner 17
That's so interesting. And then I'm I'm just reiterating what I see here. But so the grant specifically targeted Kern Contra Costa in LA County?
Redner 49
Yeah. The grant actually targeted gas and oil workers that have been displaced through refinery closures. They were there was a concentration in Contra Costa, the East Bay, LA, and Kern County. So the four of the grantees cover those three regions.
Redner 17
Okay. I know there's a a lot of bigger conversations that are happening right now with skyrocketing gas prices, a lot of fear. I know our colleague who represents Costa cost Contra Costa was here in our our hearing last time. I don't have too many questions right now as I'm digging deeper into this workers' fund, but I'll probably follow-up with you guys as I'm sure there's gonna be a lot of interest in revisiting this item.
Redner 17
And thanks for your patience as you waited a few hours to present your item.
Redner 1
Like my colleague said, I understand getting the program launched and getting it out into the community and that you have about 500 workers or a little bit more that have been able to go through the program as far as the training or retraining, I should say. Do we have any data on those individuals who've gone through the program, have been retrained, and what their job prospects have been? I know when it was discussed, you know, a good amount of handful of years ago was all about we're gonna retrain all of our, if you wanna say, oil guys into the solar, oil into solar. Now we see what's happening with the federal government related to some of the incentives, whether it be for solar or electric, electrifying our grid and so forth. Do we have any narratives on what's going on out there?
Redner 49
At this time, we don't have any performance outcomes yet. I mean, they're the 518 are enrolled. So there's usually a lag thereafter once they exit the program and they get we stick to measure job placements. We'll measure wage gains. We also, for this project, we're gonna be measuring, basically, what was the wage at at, layoff and what is the wage, so on, because we're trying to mitigate that drop off and so on.
So those are some of the metrics we'll be measuring. Though, we do not have that currently. They'll come
Redner 1
And are are you working with community colleges or different vendors or who who is doing this training?
Redner 49
So our actual grantees vary greatly. There's two nonprofits and there's two local workforce development boards. I believe nearly all of them are working with the community college. Some are working with adult ed. Some are working directly with labor.
So each of these grantees have a very, idiosyncratic kind of mix of partners based on who they work with. Like, Kern County has always worked with their community college district, and we expect good outcomes there.
Redner 1
So it just depends on the area. Yes. Alright. Appreciate that. The only comment I would make, you may not like it, but in government, there's some things that that is said a few times that I've heard over quite a bit of time, like, you either have to use it or you could lose it.
So on your funding, I know that it's taken a while to get it out, but we don't want somebody else to come back in and say, oh, there's 20,000,000 sitting there. We saw that in last budget. I think it was under cannabis. One of the funds was not, and there was money that was moved out of that budget into the general fund. So whatever you can do to get that out, I think you'll be happy to see additional people train.
Alright. I have no other questions. Anybody from the public that would like to speak?
Redner 60
My my name is Eugene Day. I'm with the Crop Organization. With the Crop Organization, we do workforce development and and reentry work. And I would just like to say in the work as a formerly incarcerated person, it's a real honor and a privilege to have been funded by members of this committee in the past and that we have a 87% employment rate, and I would ask that you support our budget ask this year. Thank you, madam chair.
Redner 61
nice to meet you. My name is, Israel Reyes. I am 33 years old, a justice involved individual, and currently a program intern at Crop. I hope to continue to grow in this program and this organization as a full time program associate. Crop has created meaningful opportunities for me, for people like me to rebuild, contribute, and move forward with dignity.
I respectfully ask that you fulfill our budget request so that this work can continue supporting individuals and system impacted communities across California. Thank you.
Redner 62
Good job. Good afternoon. My name is Ricardo Romero, and I am a former program intern with the Crop organization. Today, I'm proud to say because of their workforce development program that I've been hired meaningful and gainful employment with other organizations. What it has done for me as a formerly incarcerated person who served twenty five years in prison as a youth offender, it just brought me stability, something that I never had in my life.
And so I just ask that you please continue to fund Cropp Organization. Thank you.
Redner 63
Good afternoon. My name is Josiah Rodriguez. I'm the youngest, Cropp fellow, to attend the program. I'm a youth offender, and this program saved my life. Coming home, I had nowhere to go, and they gave me all the resources and tools.
Currently, I work for a nonprofit Organization Francisco. I work with the San Francisco juvenile probation department. And, if it wasn't for Crop, I wouldn't be where I'm at today. So if you can continue the the funding for this program. Thank you.
Thank you.
Redner 64
Good afternoon. My name is Alexandra Kimmons. I'm a staff member with Croc Organization. Our fellows thank you so much. Our fellows, when they leave prison, they want to work.
They want to contribute to the community, but there are lot of barriers in place. Our organization fills those barriers. We provide upskilling, readying everyone for the modern workforce, and we also provide support to enter into meaningful employment with family wages, that can support a family. And, we've so far had fellows go into the painters union, become peer counselors, even UX designers after decades in prison. It's an amazing program, and I respectfully request you continue funding it.
Thank you so much.
Redner 56
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Michael Stone. I'm also a formerly incarcerated lifer. Been home almost six years now after doing twenty years in prison, and I am also an employee at the Crop organization as a Ready for Life coach. As a Ready for Life coach, I help support the participants when they come home with leadership development, mindset development, really unpacking a lot of the trauma that they experienced prior to prison and while in prison.
We support them with digital literacy, financial wellness, and all the little wraparound support that they need so they can be successful and be leaders in their own lives. I'm just here to ask that you guys can continue to support our program with funding. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Let's see. We have the crop that we just heard about. I'm gonna comment about that, but no other questions or comments related to our displaced oil and gas workers fund. We thank you.
To the crop gentlemen and woman speaking, I just wanna give you a lot of praise. I know the road you've traveled. You you can leave if you want, but I'm I'm just gonna expand on this if I have a personal moment here. You know, I I represent Orange County and parts of Los Angeles. This is my last year as a state assemblywoman.
And for many years, because maybe of where I lived, I didn't get a lot of advocacy for, incarcerated folks. I didn't get a lot of groups that would come to me. Maybe they soon because I'm in Orange County, I would be an automatic no. But it's just, really the point to those out there watching that you never know what's going to impact a legislator or what they've been touched by. And about three years ago, Smart Justice came through my door, and that became a new pathway for me to not only learn, but
Redner 3
really get really to understand more about what my brothers had gone through who were in the system. And I know if they had the opportunities that I see with what you've just stated, the crop program or any of the other reentry programs, they both would still be alive. And it's been very traumatic, but I now have visited every prison across California and have traveled internationally to see what we can do more to make sure that when individuals are incarcerated, we find ways to to allow them to reenter and to have opportunities, and that's just what you've expressed. So I thank you for your courage and for all the advocacy groups out there that are working on behalf of you. And to those people who work in that area, know that you need to talk to each legislator because you never know their stories.
Thank you.
Redner 3
Okay. With that, we are gonna indoor oh, wait. K. Finally, we have our non presentation items, and we are asking the public. We have a very long list.
You can see that on our agenda, if you would like to speak to those items.
Redner 65
Thank you, madam chair. Keith Dunn. I'll be very quick. Just wanting to express support from the state building construction trades council for the pre apprenticeship program funding as well as the silicosis, workers funding to sustain budget and support the governor's trail. So thank you.
Redner 66
Good afternoon, chair, clerk Silva and members of the committee. I my name is Gabrielle Jimenez. I'm the director of government community affairs at GBS. We are a statewide workforce development nonprofit dedicated to connecting Californians, particularly those facing systematic barriers to employment to high quality family sustaining careers. Over the last decade, JVS has partnered with the state through the high road training partnership program, which has enabled us to expand statewide, including serving the Central Valley, Inland Empire, Los Angeles, and San Diego, helping thousands of Californians access free training and career pathways in high demand industries.
However, recent state budgets have not included new investments in broad based workforce development programs like HRTP, and they are nearing the end of their funding cycles. That is why we'd like to uplift Assembly Member Stephanie's request to, for targeted investments in workforce development programs, a request that is also supported by assembly member Ward and senator Weiner as part of their budget priorities. We recognize the complexity of California's fiscal situation and understand the budgetary pressures the state is navigating. Yet now more than ever investing in proven programs is not just beneficial, it is essential to Californians, that Californians can access good jobs and to sustain the momentum of the California Jobs First economic development strategy. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important request.
Redner 66
It's a general item Okay. Regarding assembly member Stephanie's budget request.
Redner 67
Good afternoon. Under item one, under the labor agency general item, good afternoon, chair, members, Carol Gonzales on behalf of Inclusive Action for the City, a CDFI in Los Angeles whose mission is to serve underinvested communities and build thriving local economies. We are proud to cosponsor the seed four point o budget request along with our colleagues from the Economic Mobility Coalition. As you'll hear as you'll hear from my colleagues, this budget request comes through your committee as part of as it has in the past. Previously, SEED was initiated and included in the governor's budget with 30,000,000 in funding over two rounds and administered through the ETP, employment training panel under the Libra agency.
Last year, we were very fortunate to build off that momentum and garner the legislature's support to secure 7,500,000.0 in the budget for c three point o. And now given the current landscape, we respectfully come to you requesting a fourth round. For the sake of time, my colleagues will also share more on this request, but we hope to continue to work on this request together and, share more information should your staff need. Thank you.
Redner 68
Good afternoon, chair and members of the subcommittee. My name is Daniela Rodriguez with Immigrants Rising and a proud co lead of the Economic Mobility for All Coalition and here to request, as was mentioned, a budget request of 45,000,000 over two years to reinvest in the Social Entrepreneurs for Economic development initiative, also known as SEED. This program has been highly successful in providing training and funding to help people start or scale their businesses and, in turn, support themselves, communities, and the local economy. While we remain, mindful of the current budget landscape, we are also mindful of the demand and the need for this program. We're grateful for past seed funding.
However, in each of those, rounds of funding, only about one in five applicants eligible applicants received funding, leaving leaving communities and regions underfunded. Small businesses are under severe economic strain, and for immigrant entrepreneurs in particular, these pressures are compounded by language barriers, lack of traditional banking access, and exclusion from federal relief programs. With that, thank you, and we look work we look forward to working with you and the rest of the committee to realize this budget as at this time. Thank you.
Redner 67
Hi, madam chair and members. My name is Chloe Rosillo with the California Immigrant Policy Center and a proud co lead of the seed budget request. I wanna echo the comments made by our two co leads before me in support of the request, and want to add that our immigrant communities are being squeezed from every direction right now. Critical workplaces like restaurants, car washes, and agricultural fields are facing ICE raids, creating fear and instability for workers. We're also hearing reports of employers committing fraud, issuing threats, or withholding wages after learning a worker's immigration status.
At the same time, many immigrant families are losing access to health care and food support or being forced to pay steep premiums and forcing them to cover their basic needs out of pocket. All of this makes reliable forms of employment and independent economic opportunities more critical than ever. That's why we're urging the legislature to invest in immigrant entrepreneurship and work ownership through the $45,000,000 seed budget asked to create equitable equitable pathways for immigrant entrepreneurs to earn a living for themselves and support their families. Thanks so much.
Redner 17
Good afternoon. My name is Dara Dada with Cameo Network, an association of more than 400 small business providers, many of which are seed grantees. Please support a $45,000,000 over two years renewed investment in the social entrepreneurs for economic development initiative. In recent years, Latino and immigrant entrepreneurs have started new businesses at twice the rate of the general population. The seed program provides an entrance into business ownership so these entrepreneurs can generate income to support their families and contribute to the economic vitality of their communities.
Many grantees are Cameo members. For one example, one member is using the grant to incubate 60 home childcare businesses with an expected economic impact of 16,300,000 in Monterey County. Show your support for immigrant workers and entrepreneurs and renew seed four point o. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Seen anybody else coming up to speak on any items on our non presentation? Seen no one else? This will also be held open, and that's gonna end our committee hearing today. Thank you for joining us.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.