Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration

Check. Check. Okay. Good afternoon and welcome to our Assembly budget subcommittee four hearing. This hearing is taking place in room 447. Today we are covering the Office of Planning and Research, the Commission on Asian Pacific Islander American Affairs, CalVet, and the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. We will be accepting public comment at the end of this hearing, both in the hearing room and on the phone.

The phone number to connect is on the Committee website and should be displayed on the screen. If you are watching this hearing online, the phone number is toll free 877-692-8957 and the public access code is 131-5447 if you encounter any problems, please contact the Assembly Budget Committee at 916-319-2099 and a Staff Member will assist you. We encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing. Please send your written testimony to budgets of four at ASM.CA.gov with that roll call, please.

Assemblymember Carillo. Here. Assemblymember Lee, Assemblymember Patterson. Assembly Member Reyes. Assembly Member Wicks.

We have quorum and we will begin on the vote only calendar. We have three items for consideration which are listed on the agenda. The first motion is on the Government Operations Agency, Mass Timber Building competition, Reappropriation. Reappropriation. Yeah, I was going to read it twice. The chair's recommendation is to approve as budget a Kinneken motion in a second. Thank you. Roll call, please.

Carillo, Aye. Carillo, aye. Lee. Lee, aye. Patterson. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Wicks. Aye. Wicks, aye.

The second motion is on the fair Political Practice Commission. Excessive contributions. The chair's recommendation is to approve as budgeted. Can I get a motion in a second?

Carillo, Aye. Carillo, aye. Lee. Lee, aye. Patterson. Reyes? Reyes, aye. Wicks. Aye.

The third motion is on the Commission on state mandates, funded and suspended mandates. The chair's recommendation is to adopt the January budget and the spring finance letter proposal and adjustments. Roll call, please.

Carillo, Aye. Carillo, aye. Lee. Lee, aye. Patterson. Here. Reyes? Reyes, aye. Wicks. Aye.

Great. We will continue with issues. Mr. Patterson, would you like to add on now? Can you call the vote, please?

First motion is on vote only, calendar issue number one. Patterson. Patterson, aye. Second motion is on vote only, calendar issue number two. Patterson. Patterson. Aye. Third motion is to vote only, calendar issue number three. Patterson. Patterson. No.

Thank you. And thank you to the Committee Members for being here on time. I know we have other committees happening at the same time. We will commence with issue number one, Office of Planning and Research, Cal Volunteers. For this issue. We will hear about the administration's proposal to provide ongoing funding for Cal Volunteers as there is a lot of construction taking place and this room is very echoey. Just please speak as closely to the mic as you possibly can. Thank you. Begin when you're ready.

Great, thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you so much for having us today. My name is Josh Friday and I'm with California volunteers. I'm here today with our COO, Anthony Chavez, and our Office of California Volunteers oversees paid service and volunteer opportunities. Really with the goal to unite, to mobilize and to engage Californians in service so that we can tackle our biggest challenges together.

And we do understand that one of the biggest challenges facing our state is the reality of an economy that leaves too many behind without real opportunity and a sense of hope for a career of dignity, meaning and purpose. And this is especially true in a tough economy. So before you today are two unique program budget proposals.

They are both focused on creating economic opportunity and a future workforce, while inspiring young people to serve and fostering future leaders in communities that are too often underinvested in first the California Climate Action Corps we are requesting 4.7 million annually and ongoing to expand and continue the proven and successful California Climate Action Program. In 2020, California volunteers launched what has become the country's first statewide corps focused on empowering Californians to take meaningful climate action.

The California Climate Action Corps fellows work for either a summer or an 11 month term of service, and they work with public agencies, tribes and nonprofits throughout the state to support community climate engagement and climate action, and particularly in communities that are hit hardest by this climate crisis. And in fact, right now, in LA County and the Inland Empire and the East Bay alone, we have dozens of fellows working with a multitude of organizations.

The California Climate Action Corps program leverages federal AmeriCorps funding, and hundreds of Climate Action Corps fellows have already served throughout our state in communities on the front lines, and these fellows receive both a stipend and a scholarship to help pay for school or pay down debt in the future. In part, we are requesting funding because demand for this particular program is greater than what we can accommodate at this point.

For the current fellowship term, organizations and institutions applied to host over 450 full time fellows, while only 115 full time slots were available. The California Climate Action Corps also received five fellow applications for every one slot available, showing us that Californians are eager and hungry for service opportunities where they can contribute to their economy while learning and preparing for a career in the new green economy.

Madam Chair, I recently had a chance to meet with Anna Koba Rubius in your district who was working with LA Compost, and she talked to me about how impactful it was for her to be able to not just serve in her district, but to be able to educate the community she grew up in around sustainability. And the Climate Corps is also engaging literally thousands of volunteers across the state to be empowered to take climate action.

Assemblyman Lee, it was really great to be with you last year in San Jose for Community Climate Action Day, which was organized by our Climate Action Corps Fellows. And these wonderful events are happening in literally communities across the state. So we have learned that Californians are hungry to have opportunities to work in climate and be part of the new clean economy. And we know that we just need to create these opportunities.

The second budget request is for the Californians for All Youth Jobs Corps, for which we request $78.1 million in ongoing funding. In 2022, California volunteers launched the Youth Jobs Corps. This is a partnership between the state and local governments to give underserved youth a meaningful service experience while earning a competitive wage and gaining valuable skills to help launch their careers.

To date, 27 local governments, including the 13 biggest cities, have been funded to employ youth aged 16 to 30 who are, and we very intentionally focus this program on this population who are low income, justice involved, current or former foster youth engaged with the mental health or substance abuse system, or otherwise struggling to enter the workforce.

And with this request before you today, our intention is to expand the focus of the youth Jobs Corps to include DACA recipients and AB 540 California Dream act students, a population we know is too often excluded from fellowships, federally funded national service programs and other professional opportunities. And we are working hard to change this. And we appreciate very much, Madam Chair, the opportunity to discuss this program with your community members and organizations recently in your district.

With this program, in addition to a competitive wage, participants receive wraparound services, which includes everything from emergency housing assistance to childcare, resume preparation, leadership training and much more. And they work in a variety of critical areas, including food insecurity, climate action and education. The demand for these opportunities are real. Over 6000 young people have already applied to be part of the California Youth Jobs Corps in Assemblyman Wicks.

I was recently actually in Richmond to meet with you, Job Corps Member from your district, and I also recently was with youth empowerment program members in Oakland where they are helping beautify streets. They're building community gardens to educate, empower and feed the neighborhood, and they are also building tiny homes and remodeling homes for low-income families. This is the kind of meaningful work and service that is now happening in communities across California because of the Youth Jobs Corps.

This budget request for the Californians for all youth Job Corps program extends the current program beyond fiscal year 24, which is necessary in order to continue this program. So to conclude, the Californians for All Youth Jobs Corps program and the Climate Action Corps, we believe are a win, win, win. They're a win for the service Members who receive the jobs and the opportunities and the career experience to help launch their career.

It's a win for our communities who are benefiting from this really meaningful work, and it's a win for all of society when we create real economic opportunity for those who need it most, while at the same time connecting people to their community, connecting people to each other, and hopefully inspiring careers in public service for the next generation. We look forward to expanding these programs in your districts, and we appreciate your time and consideration today and are happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll hear from the LAO, followed by the Department of Finance.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Rachel Ehlers with the LAO. As noted in your agenda, we do recommend rejecting both of these proposals. And really that is in the context of your larger General Fund budget condition. We think that every dollar of brand new spending necessarily means a dollar of reductions elsewhere from your existing commitments. That's just the reality of the budget problem you're in.

So as a result, we think there's a much higher bar that you should use as you're considering new spending and expanding existing programs. And while these programs clearly have merits for the participants and for the local communities, we think they don't meet that higher bar because there is existing funding that would allow these programs to continue even without the expansions. In the case of the climate program, there's existing funding committed through 25-26.

In the case of the youth jobs corps, there is existing funding for the next fiscal year, as well as several other programs that meet similar goals and similar populations. And as well, these programs are pretty new. They're kind of in their first or second year.

So if you waited, you could collect additional data and find out their effectiveness, and that might put you in a better position as hopefully the General Fund condition does improve to decide whether you want to make ongoing, sustained commitments to these programs. So really, in the context of the very tough fiscal decisions that you're making, we think that focusing on your existing commitments rather than expanding at this time makes the most sense for these programs.

Kevin Clark, Department of Finance so just respond to LAO's comments on rejecting the proposals. In terms of the California Climate Action Corps request. We know that climate mitigation and adaptation is not really an either-or strategy, but really multifaceted and coordinated approach across state agencies. And so, we're seeing early success with the Climate Action Corps and a lot of interest.

And Cal Volunteers is enabling a volunteer base to become proactive in their local communities in terms of the youth jobs corps proposal, again, seeing early success and interest across the state for this program. And as LAO mentioned, the need for budget year funding is so that the program doesn't lapse in the budget year. Funding is necessary in budget year because there's a request for applications by fall of 2023 that would occur and then a grant awards would be given in the spring of 2024.

So it is important to provide budget year funding to continue this program without a lapse. Happy to answer any other questions.

Thank you. Any comments or questions from members of the Dais majority leader?

Thank you. Without a doubt, increasing volunteerism is extremely important and you've got a program whose goal it is to increase volunteerism. I know we had conversation about increasing it in the Inland Empire and making sure that more in my community are included. I know you zeroed in on our chair and on Ms. Wicks. I heard nothing about the Inland Empire, but I know that it's in the works. Having said that, I recognize that we've got lots of programs we're going to take money away from.

We have Cal Works, we have housing, money for housing. And all of these are taking hits. I appreciate the fact that we do have funding through 26. One of the issues or one of the comments was to provide that we need to have more data. We need to know how successful it was. You mentioned you have 6000 people who applied, have already applied. My question is, how many slots do you have for those? 6000.

So first let me apologize. We are eager to come with you to be in the Inland Empire with you. We do have several programs that are operating Inland Empire with the Climate Action Corps as well as with the youth Jobs Corps, including in Riverside and San Bernardino.

Just didn't mention them.

We just failed to mention them. So forgive me. To date, over 2000 youth Job Corps Members have participated in the program of the 6000 that have applied and we expect by the end of the year to have somewhere around 5000 positions. It's a little hard to estimate because we allow flexibility for the cities and counties to pay a competitive wage based on what they think is competitive locally. So there's different amounts that the members are paid to participate in the program.

But we are talking about thousands of young people, and these are young people, again, foster youth, formerly incarcerated, Low income. And if we're able to expand to DACA and AB 540 students that are benefiting from this program, I think if.

We had the kind of budget that we had last year; I think this would be great. I think that as we're looking to balance a budget, I do have concerns. However, one thing that I think will be important is a collection of data. And it is now, all kidding aside, making sure that all of our regions do receive funding, that we are inviting our youth from various areas of the State of California to participate.

Also looking at the diversity of those who are being included, who actually get the stipend, who actually get the scholarship. The program, I think, is a great program and I would love to see it expand. Looking at our budget constraints, that is something that we have to take into consideration. But I'm glad to know that the funding is there at least through 26.

And just to clarify, that's for the Climate Action Corps program. As indicated by the Department of Finance, the Youth Jobs Corps program will lapse by next year without further action.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Yeah, I think right now, where we are having to make decisions, it's hard to consider expanding programs in the future. Right now, I was intrigued and interested in the comments about helping foster youth. It is foster youth awareness, foster care Awareness Month right now. I happen to sit on a couple of budget subs, this being one of them. And in budget sub five, we've been talking about a proposal to cut $40 million from Casa programs, and that was also General Fund.

So it's hard for me sitting on a couple of these committees, because I can say, okay, well, we have this pot of money here to expand a program, but know separately, we have a proposal to cut funding that people were actually, depending on where foster those kids. Getting that help would help reduce potentially future incarceration and homelessness and things like that.

So for my two cent, for what it's worth, I think I do have some concerns about expansions of programs at this point when we're cutting some critical programs right now.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Thank you for the presentation. I'd like to just clarify a couple of things, and I think you've heard from the Members, we've all gone through a few meetings as of late. Given the budget reality, what we're able to trim down, what we're able to move forward, what we're able to defer, not necessarily cut completely, but defer in an effort to balance our budget.

So these are all conversations that are ongoing throughout a variety of different issues, a lot of which have come before this Committee, especially related to housing and homelessness, which is priority to all of us across the state. I was under the impression previously that the program that we helped fund initially included AB 540 students and undocumented students. Can you share why that's not the case and why this proposal is now just including them?

Yeah. So, a couple of things. One is the original funding for this program was federal funding through the American Rescue Plan. And so, because it wasn't state funding, did not cover the AB 540 population, it was also initially not a target area. So, in the initial program, which we've been running over the last year, the target areas were, as discussed, foster youth, formerly incarcerated youth in the mental health and substance abuse systems.

And so, the intention with this proposal is not to also to clarify, is not to expand the amount that we're spending, but is to make sure that if we are able to continue this program, that we are now expanding who is included to make a focus area our DACA and dreamer population, and then also because it's state funding available to be able to create fellowships through AB 540 program.

So that is the intention of this program because it would be, for the first time, using state General funds to allow us to include that population.

Thank you. And just again, to clarify, what was the amount and percentage that you received through federal funding?

The initial amount for this was Anthony Chavez. What was the amount over the two years?

So over two years, I believe we received 100.

Can you introduce yourself and speak closer to Mike?

Anthony Chavez, California volunteers. I believe we received over one hundred forty-six million over two years.

Yeah.

And it was entirely federal funding.

Madam Chair?

Kevin Clark, Department of Finance. 185 for the youth job score.

So, one hundred eighty-five million federal funding for the youth Job Corps that did not include DACA recipients because it's federal funding.

Is that accurate?

That's correct. And I think you may be referring to the College Service Corps program that included. I don't have the exact amount, but it included General Fund Dollars to allow for undocumented participation.

We have a third program, which is the California's called College Corps program. And that program focused on college students is $146,000,000 over two years. About $30 million of that was state General Fund specifically to provide those opportunities to AB 540 students.

What's the name of that program?

The College corps.

College Corps, yeah. So we're talking about three different programs.

Yeah.

And before the Committee today, is just a proposal with regard to two programs.

Right. I just want to get clarification as to the ambiguity of DACA recipients and where they're being placed based on federal funding? Based on General funding. So the College Corps program that included 146 millions of federal funds, included 30 million of General funds, which allows AB 540 students to be able to participate, correct?

And so the additional inclusion of what we're discussing today is for the climate jobs.

That's correct, yes.

So, you just described the College Corps program. Then we have a Climate Action Corps, which is a program that California volunteers launched a few years ago. And the proposal before you today is to expand that program and provide ongoing funding. Because that program, Madam Chair, because we leverage federal funds through Americorps in order to run that program, we are not allowed to include AB 540 students or dreamers because there's a citizenship requirement.

So, one of the reasons that we are so focused and being intentional on both building the college core program and the Youth Jobs Corps program, if we're able to continue it, is to make sure that we are able to provide these opportunities to that population specifically.

So thank you for that. The LAO's comments related to data I think are important. Obviously, you heard the majority leader talk about it. We've talked about it on other issues as well. When will you be able to provide us a report as to what the populations of job placement has been across the state? And is there measurements that you're looking at related to diversity and inclusion?

Yes, absolutely. We collect data regularly on all of these programs, and so we're able to provide data now. We could provide reports for your offices on each of these programs, on College Corps, for instance, which is not before you today, but just as an example, 80% of the program are self-identified students of color. 70% of them are Pell grant recipients. We have nearly 500 Dreamers participating in the program.

And with our youth jobs program, because of the fact that we're focusing specifically on certain populations, we're very proud of the fact that it does represent California. And diversity, equity and inclusion is a pillar of what we're trying to accomplish with these economic opportunity programs.

What would you say are the measurements.

Of success that the program works well for jobs? One, are we placing opportunities for these young people? Are we creating real opportunities? And I think both the demand and then our ability to place them is showing that success already. We're also hoping as part of the program to not just provide a short term experience, although it's meaningful, but to help these young people launch careers. That's where the real economic opportunity comes into play.

That's why the wraparound services that we make available with these resources are so critical. So being able to ensure that these young people have jobs after, it's why we're so encouraged in places we've seen across the state. LA, San Diego, San Jose. We're already seeing youth jobs corps Members being hired into the city for full time jobs as just one example, or being hired by the nonprofit that they're working so long-term job placement is one of the things that we're tracking.

We just had a graduation in Monterey for several youth jobs. Corps Members who were unemployed, did our program for six months, and are now working full time for state parks in Monterey is just one example. So that's the kind of information we're tracking for climate corps. We're tracking not just their participation and retention, but what impact are they having in the community. How many climate actions are they taking?

Trees planted, food diverted from going to landfill, but also how much we're helping with scholarships to reduce their student debt. These are all the kinds of metrics that we're tracking very closely in the data that we're tracking.

Thank you. And finally, given the budget proposes reductions in many other areas, and you've heard concerns here today, is there a particular reason why the Administration proposed an ongoing expansion of this program?

So, to be clear, the main expansion is with the Climate Action Corps. And I believe it's because the Administration has seen the demand and understands that this is part of a much broader, comprehensive approach to take climate action for California to continue to lead. And as stated, this is the country's first climate action core program. It's proven to be successful. The demand is outpaced our ability to accommodate, creating these opportunities for young people.

And so the hope is to expand so we can continue to meet that demand. For the Jobs Corps program. The expansion is not an expansion in terms of dollars or the number of people. It's expansion in terms of the populations that we're hoping to reach and include with this proposal.

So the hope is to, one, be more inclusive to ensure that we are providing opportunities, as we discussed, for populations like our AB 540 students who deserve these kinds of opportunities and this economic opportunity and the desires to be able to continue a program that we know is successful. We've seen the demand and our local leaders have seen the impact of it. And our concern is that without action this year, that the program will lapse in the near future.

Thank you. If there are no additional comments, or questions. Appreciate the presentation. This item is open for the moment, and we'll continue discussion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

All Members, let's move on to the next issue with OPR.

OPR BCPs. Please begin when you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Carrillo. Scott Morgan with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research here to talk about a variety of budget change proposals as listed in the agenda for the Committee. The first one is the Racial Equity Commission and Youth Equity Commission proposal. The office is requesting 3.7 million in General Fund starting fiscal year 23-24 and 3.1 million continuing from 24-25 through 29-30 to support the new Racial Equity Commission as well as support the Youth Empowerment Commission.

Of the total amount included in that 1.5 in General Fund has already been allocated by the Legislature to support the Youth Equity Commission. The proposal does include trailer bill language to place the Youth Equity Commission--sorry--Youth Empowerment Commission at the Office of Planning and Research. It's currently out there by itself and doesn't have anybody to administer it.

As required by executive order, the Racial Equity Commission will be tasked with developing resources, best practices, and tools to advance racial equity, and those tools and resources are for both state and local governments. This effort will ultimately result in the development of a statewide racial equity framework which will be submitted to the Governor and the Legislature no later than April 1st of 2025, and that framework is meant to help the state--guide the state through our racial equity work.

This framework will be developed through a process of outreach with stakeholders, both public and private. The Commission will consist of 11 members, seven appointed by the Governor, two by the Senate Committee on Rules, and two by the Speaker of the Assembly. Creation of the Commission was and is a priority of both the Legislature and the Administration.

The Youth Empowerment Commission was enacted by AB 46 in 2021 as a state body tasked to examine and discuss policy and fiscal issues affecting the interests, needs, and conditions of the youth of California and to formally advise and make recommendations to the Legislature, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Governor on specific legislation and fiscal issues affecting youth.

The Youth Empowerment Commission will be made up of 13 members, 11 of which will be appointed by the Governor to be between the ages of 14 and 25, one appointed by the Senate Rules Committee, and one appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly. Would you like to ask questions on that or should I just roll through all of the proposals at once?

You can roll through all the proposals, but keep them brief, please. That'd be great.

Sounds good. The next up is the General Plan Guidelines Proposal. As you all know, OPR is required to develop general plan guidelines and this provides advice to cities and counties on how to adopt and implement general plans. The last update to the guidelines was 2017. Since that time, approximately 150 different laws have been passed here in California which impact local planning processes and need to be addressed to the guidelines. We are requesting 2.2 million dollars to update those guidelines and that is our request.

I will not read the rest of that to keep it brief. The Legal and Legislative Proposal: this is really to add to our legal and ledge team. We're requesting 1.4 million dollars in five positions ongoing. With the significant growth and complexity of the programs at OPR, we feel this is needed to meet our both legislative and legal requirements within OPR, and really we're just very short staffed in that side of the House. The next proposal is the Extreme Heat Proposal. This came out of 2238.

Assembly Bill 2238. The officers requesting 944,000 dollars General Fund in 23-24 and 564,000 in 24-25 and 25-26 to support the development and implementation of a statewide heat ranking system. This amount is inclusive to senior intergovernmental analysts, one associate intergovernmental analyst to support the development of the extreme heat ranking system. This work will be coordinated with and as part of the overall extreme heat work that's going on at Natural Resources Agency, CalEPA, Department of Insurance, and other entities across the state.

So larger part of our cross-organizational, cross-state extreme heat work. Final proposal on the agenda is--sorry--one more. A Tribal Liaison Position: we were asking for funding to hire a tribal liaison. There was statute passed requiring consultation and coordination with general plans with tribal governments, several laws that have been passed requiring planning entities in CEQA to consider tribes. We currently do not have a dedicated position for that.

That individual will also act as a tribal liaison across all of OPR budget programs to coordinate tribal activities across grant programs, guidelines, and other activities within the state. The final proposal is the Adaptation Strategy Position. This is new requirements out of AB 1384. We were asking for funding for one position to support that work.

That work is going to be coordinated again across state agencies with the California Natural Resources Agency and the other agencies that are part of the Adaptation Strategy and really new work that has been placed at OPR that we don't have the staff to fulfill. I will leave it at that and take any questions.

Thank you. We'll go with the LAO, followed by the Department of Finance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, Rachel Ehlers with the LAO. We didn't raise any concerns with any of these specific proposals. We do think the Staff Analysis raises some important considerations for the Legislature, in particular in light of the very significant growth in both assigned responsibilities and funding for this office in recent years, so ultimately, it's really, what do you want this office to do, and do you want it to continue to grow and expand for all of these responsibilities it has recently been assigned?

What is the accountability to the Legislature for these activities, and how are the responsibilities interacting with and coordinating with other state departments and agencies doing similar work? Thank you.

Kevin Clark, Department of Finance. No further comments.

Any comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Seeing none, just a couple that I have.

Sure.

Can you provide us with a description of the proposed 80 million reduction and its impact?

Yeah. I can give you a very high level and Kevin can chime in too as well, from DOF. Basically, this is an overall effort by the Administration to find cost cutting based on our current budget situation.

I'm sorry, find what? I'm sorry.

To find cost cuttings based on our current budget situation. So this was one pot that we thought was a reduction while also leaving a significant amount for the office to continue the great work that they're doing.

Yeah, I mean--Kevin Clark, Department of Finance. We've talked about this now. I mean, we are facing a budget deficit, and in an effort to propose a balanced budget, we had to make some pretty tough, difficult decisions.

So, consistent with the approach taken by the Administration and various budget reductions, we looked at appropriations that were provided on a one-term basis and we were careful to really identify and focus in on funding that wasn't fully encumbered when making these recommendations. So, Governor's Proposed Budget, this is a starting point. We acknowledge there will be ongoing conversations to finalize the budget as well.

And the reduction of 80 million won't negatively impact plans that you currently have that have already been approved by the Legislature?

It'll reduce the amount of outreach that's going on for the VAX58 work, yes, but I don't know if 'significant' is the right word. It will impact the amount of outreach that is conducted by the Office of Community Partnerships and Strategic Communication.

One of the issues that we've discussed with OPR in the past has been the opportunities for OPR ITIN outreach work. So, related to various numbers of undocumented people that are working in the State of California, only about 76,000 are actually ITIN taxpayers, and we've discussed in the past what OPR can do to work with local nonprofit organizations and outreach efforts to increase the number of ITINS. What's the impact on that? Or what's the status of that?

So that's a different funding. The 80 million was direct to the VAX58 funding. The ITIN is being rolled into the overall work that the office is doing--and we do have a member from the office if you want more specific questions on that--but they are looking to utilize their existing network of community-based organizations and trusted messengers to get information out on the ITIN.

I'd love to hear from your colleagues specifically. I know several of us on this dais have worked to increase access to CalEITC to increase access to low income communities. We're talking about potentially changing the way that EDD also looks at unemployment insurance benefits for folks without legal status. None of that is possible if we don't have a better handle on outreach for more individuals to become ITIN taxpayers. Can you give us an update as to where conversations have been and what your potential goals are in increasing those numbers?

Absolutely. Thank you, Chair Carrillo. My name is Aubrie Fong with the Office of Community Partnerships and Strategic Communications. We were able to fold in some initial ITIN outreach. Well--sorry, let me back up first. Our office had to get very familiar with just some of the things around ITIN holders and the process that they go through to get their ITINs. So we were able to present.

We partnered with the Golden State Opportunity to present to our statewide CBO network just a couple of months ago, and we are continuing our efforts. We met with our partners over at FTB to learn a little bit more about their process and CalEITC grantees. We've also met with members of the United Way and also just kind of continue to explore some other opportunities that we can do our outreach and help give information through our CBO network partners.

What are your goals then? Can you share some of your expectations?

Yeah. So our expectation really is just to help inform our CBO partners and other external partners about what the process is, what CalEITC opportunities are, and how we can point to other places where we can get more people knowledgeable about the process for applying for ITINs and the benefits in California that that could bring them.

I appreciate your response and I know that it's a big challenge. Awareness is one thing, but results are completely another thing, right? So if we want to increase access to CalEITC benefits as just one example or have opportunities as we have seen throughout the pandemic that disenfranchise our hardest hit workers, I don't think awareness is enough. So what can you potentially put in place that creates results outside of awareness?

Our approach really starts with awareness first, but hear your comments about being results-based as well. So we do have several--or we are working on measures to make sure that our office outreach work and awareness work is results-based driven just in general with all of our work around climate and COVID-19 vaccines. So we'll be looking at how we can do that with our outreach based on ITIN process and holders as well.

Okay. And I say this in an effort to try to figure out what is it that you need, right? So if there are approximately two million workers in the State of California without status who are paying into our UI system, who are paying taxes into the state, who are contributing members of the California economy yet are missing a very simple number where they can also reap the benefits that they are paying into, I hold your department accountable in ensuring that there are more ITIN taxpayers, and it's a conversation that we've had for at least two years now, right?

And I'm glad that you've had all the conversations necessary to figure out even how one applies and gets an ITIN number, but outside of the awareness, we are looking for tangible results to help people. So what does that look like?

Yes. Agree with your points there, and I think as we learn more and explore in this area more, we did have some places to learn here as well just as we did with COVID and just as we're doing now with our extreme heat and water conservation work. So as we learn more, we will definitely come back and share some of our measures of success when it comes to outreach for ITIN holders.

I would love to see a list of the CBOs that you work with, maybe potentially by region, right? So there are 58 counties. Every county is different, but I imagine that there are some counties that actually have more workers than others that may require some assistance.

I can obviously think of farm workers, for example, that have been hit the hardest by COVID, as well as wildfires and in the Pajaro region--even by floods--all of whom don't have access to UI and don't have access to additional benefits. I worry that they may not be in a space to be connected with community groups where they don't know how to get an ITIN. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure, right, but I know that there's a void there that we need to figure out.

And so my goal is to ensure if we have potentially two million workers in the State of California without legal status and only about 70,000 ITIN taxpayers, how do we create more ITIN taxpayers? And I leave that with you. I know you don't have a response now, but I would love to see more a proposal on how that can change moving forward.

Absolutely, and happy to provide a list of our CBO partners as well. We do have them broken down into ten regions throughout California.

Thank you. No additional--yes, Majority Leader?

I really do appreciate the comments from the Chair, and I think that it is really important. CalEITC has been expanded, as you know, to ITIN filers, but if we have so few that have actually gone through the process to get the ITIN, then we're leaving lots of money on the table, and this is money that can go to these families that absolutely do deserve to have it. The list of CBOs that your department is reaching out to is extremely important.

I know I would like to see the list from my region specifically and I have another request. I'd like to see what the information is that goes out about how to get an ITIN because many of the people that I talk to, even some of my CBOs, I still don't have a good handle on what it is--the message that is conveyed to those who don't have documentation yet are paying taxes.

Right, and just a quick point of clarification, our office is a public awareness and outreach office, so our charge with ITIN initially was the public awareness and outreach efforts, and there are other state agencies that we're working closely with and other organizations that we're working closely with to do and build the ITIN application process or get more folks to apply for the ITIN.

So I just wanted to make that quick point of clarification too, that that would be something that our partners would be working with and we would be helping to share out that information.

And who are the partners?

Our CBO network partners or other external partners that we've built from the Census Campaign and the Vaccinate ALL 58 Campaign as was mentioned earlier. We have a large CBO network that we are looking to build on, maintain, and kind of continue through this work that the new office has been charged with.

And to use the numbers that the Chair has shared, that there are only 70,000 of potential two million, I think that if we're going to be successful, we have to have a goal. We have to be intentional about where we want to be next year. Otherwise it'll be: well, if they apply, fine. If they don't apply, we've done everything we can.

But if we say by next year we intend to have 200,000 or half a million that have ITINs, then you can measure your success by the goal that you have set. So that is something that I would request, that we have a goal that we're trying to reach and then, as the Chair has said, tell us how we help you achieve that goal, and as you are more aggressive about reaching that goal, you may realize that you need something in particular to help you get there. Then you come to us so that we can help with that.

Yes. Thank you, Assembly Member. Noted, and just as I said before, we'll work with our department partners to make sure that that information is ready for you all--again--in combination with our information on all of the public awareness and outreach that our office specifically is responsible for.

Wonderful. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, and I appreciate the discussion because I think we're trying to figure out how do we get from A to Z, right? So your department, your agency gets funded to work with the CBOs. That funding gets translated down to the bottom, to localities, municipalities, local communities, but then when those CBOs are working with folks and doing outreach, if I'm trying to get assistance, are they then responsible and trying to walk me through the process and do they have the resources to do that or is that someone at FTB or--

I want to understand how it works and where there's a void of someone just potentially wanting to do it and then maybe falling into the cracks of not moving forward with the application. Does that make sense?

Absolutely, and I think our goal is to help them get that information--whether it's from FTB or another partner agency or department or organization--is to help them get to the information so that they have more clarity on those things.

Right, but you're the outreach hand to the community nonprofits. The community nonprofits then goes out into their community, their network, and then somebody says, 'ok, I'm interested. What do I do?' What happens to that person then? Do they go back to the community nonprofit or do they go directly to FTB? They don't come to you, correct? Right?

Right. No, our CBO partners--so if the person came back to that CBO and said, 'hey, we have questions' and the CBO may not have the information available, they can always come back to our office and we can point them in a direction of expertise or they can reach out directly if we provided them information from a place like United Way or Golden State Opportunity.

If there was information provided to the CBO or the community member there, they're obviously welcome to reach back out to them, but our office is always a resource to the CBO partners if community members go back to them with questions.

Right. No, I understand--

Sorry. Maybe I'm not understanding.

No, no. You're fine. It's not a question of resource. It's a question of process.

Ultimately, we are providing them the information to be aware that this opportunity is there and then they would go directly to FTB to sign up for the opportunity. Yeah.

And we would be getting information from organizations and the FTB that we are providing to the CBO. So we're using the expert partners for the information that we're sharing with our CBO network.

So the follow up that we also have to do is with FTB and figuring out where's the connection, what's going on, and how do we create a goal to create more ITIN taxpayers?

Right.

Got it. Okay.

Because we can provide data on the amount of outreach done and the different types of communities' outreach too, but we don't have the feedback loop on who has actually contacted FTB and tried to sign up for the program.

Right. Understood. Thank you very much. This item is going to remain open. Thank you, and we're going to go to Issue Number Three: the Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs Spring Proposal and Commission Update.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon chair and Members of the Committee and Happy ABI Heritage Month. I'm Nkauj Iab Yang, Executive Director of the California Commission on Asian Pacific Islander American Affairs. Our Commission was created by Assembly Bill 116 in 2002 by Assembly Member George Nicano.

We are a 13 Member Commission whose mission is to elevate the political, economic, and social issues of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders by contributing to and strengthening how state government addresses the needs, issues, and concerns of our very diverse and complex communities.

I came on as the Commission's first ever Executive Director and staff in November 2020 in the middle of California, sheltering in place and the rise of hate incidents and hate crimes against Asian Americans, we learned and saw the devastating impacts of Covid-19 on AA and HPI communities and the uptick in Anti-Asian hate and violence throughout California. And then in March of that year, the SPA shootings of Asian women in Atlanta rocked the nation.

Immediately, the Commission met with Dr. Richard Pan, then chair of the AAPI Legislative Caucus, who quickly moved forward on coordinated and strategic action, which led to the collaboration among the AAPI Legislative Caucus budget staff, our Commission stop AAPI Hate Coalition, and almost 200 community based organizations to support what was termed the API equity budget. With the API Legislative Caucus leadership and the support of the governor's office, a historic API equity budget was secured with $166.5 million in funding for a period of three years.

As part of this funding, the Commission has been entrusted to provide consultation to the California Department of Social Services on their Stop the Hate and transformative grant programs that awards funding to organizations to provide services to victims and survivors of hate incidents and hate crimes. We also provide consultation to the California State Library on their ethnic media grant outreach program that awards funding to ethnic media outlets serving communities that are historically vulnerable to hate incidents and hate crimes.

In 2022, the Commission staff grew from a team of one to a team of three. Commission meetings expanded from public hearings to quarterly full Commission business meetings, and we also established four new Commission committees. The Commission's efforts, with the support of community partners, also led to California to establish the California AANHPI Student Achievement programs, which will provide grants to eligible California community colleges and California State universities to provide culturally responsive student support services to underserved AANHPI higher education students.

We ended 2022 with our first ever listening tour, where we held seven listening sessions in the community throughout the state to inform our work ahead. While we have accomplished a lot in a short period, one of the most pressing issue remains the alarming mental health and wellness of our AANHPI communities. Hence today's request for $149,000 ongoing General Fund for a new permanent AGPA position.

The AGPA position will focus on improving the health and wellness of AANHPI communities in California by moving forward the following three key health equity goals. One is to increase access to culturally and linguistically appropriate mental health services for AANHPI Californians. Through our listening sessions coupled with recent reports, we learned that AANHPI communities continue to face low access and utilization to mental health services and resources.

Two will be to strengthen state programs and policies to improve language access for Asian American Pacific Islander communities. The State of California has an opportunity to expand language access and justice at the intersection of communities who are limited English proficient and have high poverty rates per capita. And then three, to improve statewide health data for AANHPI communities. We need access to quality and disaggregated AANHPI data in order to identify and direct resources to communities where greater impact can be made.

So, having an additional permanent staff dedicated to strategic engagement and partnership would improve the Commission's ability to work collaboratively with the state Legislature, with the governor's office, state agencies, departments and other commissions, as well as stakeholders to address the diverse needs of all AANHPI, especially the most underserved and marginalized, to create a healthier and thriving California. Thank you and open to any questions.

Thank you very much. We'll hear from the Department of Finance, followed by Alio Anthony Franzoy, Department of Finance. No additional comments at this time.

Anne Hollington, head Legislative Analyst Office we don't have any concerns with this proposal.

Thank you, Members of the Dias. Mr.Lee

Yeah, so this is of course a strong priority for the API Legislative caucus in response to the surge of Anti-Asian hatred that we saw in 2021 that still persists today, not perhaps the same volume, but still persists today. And also, I represent by population the most Asian American district in the State of California. So I was always constantly surprised for still leading up to this day, a lot of organizations, community based organizations, were unaware of the 160 plus $1.0 million we put in.

The vast chunk of that was $110,000,000 to community based organizations, nonprofits to work on stopping API hate and just spreading more awareness or more understanding. So I have a series of questions I want to ask about it.

So about the process of this. So prior to the grant application process, did the Commission consult with potential nonprofit organizations that are likely to apply for the stop the hate and transformative grants?

Sure.

Yes. So prior to the RFA, we actually co hosted with the Department of Social Services two listening sessions where we had over 100 community organizations in attendance.

And so you got feedback from those nonprofits on the parameters of the program, too?

We received feedback regarding what the highest needs would be or what would be the issue areas that they'd like to focus on. Some of them actually did not fall within the parameters. Yes.

And independent of their work with because I know you had a lot of listing sessions or seminars with cdss. Did the Commission independently do outreach to community based organizations?

Yes, we did.

What kind of organizations or what kind of outreach did that look like?

Yeah, so we were able to collect, I can't even be able to give you a number, maybe about over 150 organizations, additional to the almost 200 organizations that were also in support of the efforts. And so we were able to provide outreach to those organizations through our newsletter, through emails, and also our social media platforms.

Then after the grants went out, what assistance did the Commission provide these nonprofits in implementing the programs they sought to get funding for?

We do not have the capacity to provide any assistance in terms of the implementation of the program.

And so if a nonprofit grantee has any concerns about when they do get the grant, do they reach out to the Commission or they reach out to CDSS?

They could reach out to both of us. And so we have had community based organizations who are funded, who have expressed concerns or even just expressed success of the programs who have reached out to us. And if they have not reached out to CDSS, then we would also ensure that CDSS was aware of the issue.

So acknowledging that your bandwidth constraints. So when a nonprofit grantee said, we have an issue implementing or we are having trouble doing what we set out to do, what do you end up doing to help them?

I would raise it with the Department of Social Services as well as the administrative CBO, which we termed the regional leads.

Okay. And did the Commission regularly meet with the nonprofits that grant these funds?

We did not meet regularly with the nonprofits. There's over 92 organizations that were funded, and so there's only three of us, one staff who focuses on higher education specifically, and then one staff services analyst. So it would leave me only, and so I do not have the capacity to be able to meet with all 90.

So it was more of a bandwidth issue of why you couldn't regularly advocate with them, right? Yeah, because I think Members of the API cookies kind of saw the Commission as kind of the advocate for these community based nonprofits. Certainly they were coming to us when we were trying to redirect them towards you all or the Department of Social Services to access these funds.

So that's obviously a challenge, and kind of alarming in that sense, is that we want you to be a good advocate for them, especially when it comes to so many different areas, especially when it comes to getting, basically money. We intend to get out the door for them. I also wanted to ask, because today, I guess we have a theme of asking for lists of things. You said there's 92 organizations that are funded. Are you able to provide that list to us of which organizations and where they're based or where they're serving, at least?

Absolutely. We can send that to you or to everyone at the Committee, or I'll send it to the staff so that they can share as well. That list is also made public on the CDSS website.

Okay, that'd be good. Now that we've, of course, in the 2021 budget expended over $110,000,000 towards that, what's kind of the results we've seen? What kind of things have happened since then?

Yeah. So I think just through what we've heard from community based organizations, is that we have seen an increase of AANHPI communities accessing services, even accessing mental health services. I think there's a lot more awareness about the impact of hate incidents and hate crimes on Asian American communities. We've also seen a lot more collaboration, cross racial community collaboration that's happening throughout the state.

I'm smiling because there are data points that have come in that we're still waiting for a program evaluator to come in to do the actual analysis. So we're hoping to be able to provide that through cdss to you all soon.

Right. So anecdotally, that's what you're hearing, you're saying, but you feel that these kind of collaborations, acts of services, are result of the investments we made?

Absolutely.

That if we had not made the investments they would otherwise be doing?

Absolutely.

Well, when do you think that report is going to come out?

I mean, I'm hoping by the end of the year, but I think, well, right now CDSS is still working on bringing on a program evaluator to do that work.

Since I haven't been able to see the data or the list of groups, do you feel there's any geographic or ethnic bias within API grants, like if it's clustered in certain geographic areas in the state or within, say, the east Asian population or south Asian population? Or has it been equitably dispersed because, of course, we have a huge diaspora and a huge even more diaspora of community based organizations, API community.

So do you feel, at least from what you've seen, there's any clustering or anything like that that's not representative?

I would say what we've seen is that we need a lot more outreach in Northern California, north of Sacramento, to the Asian population that have now grown in Siskyu County, in Shasta County. There's also a need in doing more outreach to the Inland Empire. And also just to clarify that this particular grant to or not grant, I'm sorry, this particular funding that is being administered by the Department of Social Services is not only for Asian American Pacific Islanders, it's actually for a lot of communities.

And so we're seeing in general that in terms of region, it would be Northern California, north of Sacramento, and also the Inland Empire. And even in some aspects in the San Diego area, we're seeing that there is a lot of investment that has been made to specifically the San Francisco Greater Bay Area. You're absolutely right you know there's a lot more we can do in the South Bay Santa Clara area. Yes, yes.

And so we're really happy to be working with two of the largest Asian American organizations in that area. But I know that that's not enough.

What are the two in effect over there?

It's Asian law alliance as well as AACI. Yes. And then also throughout the Central Valley is where we also would like to get more representation.

Well, I'll just leave it at know. The API caucus, the legislative caucus, is really interested in seeing the results of what's you know, obviously the investments we put in and seeing how we can do it. So if you can send us as much information as possible, we also want to see, of course, a greater role of the Commission advocating for community based organizations.

We can't solely rely on the Department of Social Services do this for us because at the know a lot of the commissioners, and I believe yourself, you have a background in community based organizations and they're much more familiar and understand the players and the language, and oftentimes they don't know how to navigate a state bureaucracy. But this is one of those times where we were able to give these investments because we wanted to translate it back on the ground in a quickly and timely manner.

But we want to know that it worked and that's important to us.

Absolutely. Thank you so much, Assembly Member.

Thank you. Just a couple of questions on my end, and thank you, Director Yang, for telling us about more of the requested positions at our last hearing, we've heard from the government operations agency and their efforts to implement a language access pilot program to translate public meetings and hearings. Will this position be able to assist you in your work?

Yes, it would be able to. I think what we are more interested in, actually, is really being able to work with GovOps on how to expand state language access when it comes to the different state departments under health and human services, knowing that a lot of our communities are trying to access public assistance. And so I think that's also where we're interested in really being able to work in partnership with Govops and other state departments.

But I'm definitely open to working with GovOps on the pilot program as well.

Well, the language access issue comes up in a variety of different spaces, and I think if I'm going to echo my colleague, assembly member Lee, it's the outreach efforts and the communities that are touched by potential funding may have some language accessibility issues as well that could be resolved. If we had interpretation services. Would that be accurate?

Yes, it's definitely accurate. I would say interpretation is key because I know a lot of times we do talk about translation, so we need translation, interpretation and other avenues as well.

Thank you. And how will the position improve on the state's existing efforts related to data collection and analysis?

Yeah. So at the moment, we are working closely with the Department of Public Health to implement AB 1726, which was authored by Assembly Member Bonta, now Attorney General Bonta, in 2016. We have been able to host a webinar with them in December to release data that they've been able to work with. We're hoping that they will be able to release additional data that is within the AP 1726 law.

And we also hope to work with the Department of Healthcare Services on their data exchange framework, as well as other ways to really increase data disaggregation for AANHPI communities.

Thank you. Appreciate that. And we understand, Director Yang, that you will be leaving the Commission in the next few months and want to thank you for your service and your dedication to the work that you're doing and to the people of the State of California. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

As we celebrate AAPI Heritage Month, we wish you the very best in your next endeavor. And again, thank you for your service.

I appreciate that.

We're going to leave this item open for the moment, and we're going to go a little bit out of order. Thank you. We're going to go to issue five, the Commission on the Status of Women and girls, thank you. Let's begin. And if we can be brief in presentations so we can move forward with the other proposals and take a vote. Thank you.

You got it. Well, thank you.

Madam Chair and Members of this Committee, Holly Martinez here, the Executive Director of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. I'm also joined by my colleague Tiffany Barto, who can provide any additional technical assistance support as it relates to SB 24 questions. But first, I'm reminiscent of being here last year and being among so many champions here on this dais for women and supporting this organization, the expansion of positions and of the women's recovery response $7.9 million grant program.

And if you'll indulge me for a moment, I wanted to share our annual report because really, it demonstrates all the work that we were able to do because of your support. And so we are here today to talk about SB 24 program. For those of you who may not be as familiar with the Commission, we are here to champion policy and program solutions so women and girls can achieve economic security, health, greater equality, and justice for all. Together, we are fighting for justice for women.

But to do this work, we have to be relevant and compelling when it comes to supporting and talking about issues related to women. We can no longer talk about women's issues as a moral obligation, expecting people to do the right thing. Instead, our work at the Commission has been focused on reframing the conversations about women and to bring to light accurate representation of our challenges, our roles, contributions, as more than half of California's population, that's over 20 million Californians that this Commission represents.

Because we know women are essential to California's future. But we know that future has been threatened by the long standing impact of the pandemic. In 2021, we advocated for first of its kind funding with the support of many of you, as I had mentioned, to secure 7.9 million in Women's Recovery Response funding, we created a $5 million grant program, the first in our nearly 60 year history.

Developed by extensive research in partnership with the University of California, Berkeley's California Policy Lab, we launched a statewide public awareness campaign. We did this all within a six to 12 month period, and as you all know, in government that is extremely nimble and effective. Our funding was renewed again in 22-23.

Unfortunately, it is not on the current slate for 2023-24 the women's recovery response helped support women who were essential workers, caring for our loved ones in hospitals, educating our kids, keeping our stores open, and more, all while adding to the burden of added responsibilities in the home. In California, women's employment fell significantly more than men's during the first two years of the pandemic. Female dominated occupations such as the care industry, hospitality, education sectors suffered the largest shared job losses across the nation.

Women of color were the first to lose their jobs and last to regain them. Among those women, black and Latino immigrant women lost more jobs. Unemployment affected poor women and women without college degrees the hardest. On the contrary, women with degrees and without children who remain employed saw their earnings rise. This just goes to show our systems were not built for women, women of color, or working mothers to thrive.

And as the pandemic continues to impact women economically, the right of bodily autonomy was also under attack. As a state entity that works to eliminate inequities in state laws, practices and conditions that affect California's women and girls, the Commission stands committed to ensure reproductive health access in the face of actions that deteriorate progress towards equality and harm citizens.

In doing so, the college student to Right to Access Act, formerly known as Senate Bill 24, authored by then Commissioner Connie Leva, requires, on or after January 1st, 2023 each Student Healthcare Service Clinic on a University of California campus or California State University campus to offer abortion by medication techniques through campus health centers. I commend the foresight of the Legislature to pass this bill back in 2019.

This legislation increases access to reproductive health care at UCS and CSUs and is designed to reduce barriers for hundreds of California Public University students who are forced to go off campus and seek care every month, often missing class and delaying their access to vital health care services. The Commission is responsible for administering the College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund, which provides private funding for statewide efforts across all the State of California University and campuses.

The Commission is also tasked with providing non monetary assistance and support, as well as activity and expenditure reporting to the Legislature. To that end, we have published two year end reports in December of 2022 and 23, available on our website. The implementation of this program has been groundbreaking, institutionalized improved readiness and access to medicated abortion across California's University system. This has truly been a nation leading model.

We respectfully request to extend the existing position authority by two years for three limited term positions tasked with implementing SB 24 to develop, implement, report, monitor and oversee the work of the program. There is sufficient funding in the balance of private funds to continue to support these positions for the extension requested. Thank you very much.

Thank you for that. We'll go to the Department of Finance, followed by the LAO

comments or questions from the DAis.

Anthony Franzoy Department of Finance. No additional comments at this time, but happy to answer any questions.

Anne Hollings, head, LAO we have no concerns with this proposal,

Ms. Wicks, just want to thank you for your work. Big supporter of what you all are doing. Turns out we still haven't achieved equity.

So the work can 136 years added. To the pay gap it would take for women to reach parity.

Yeah. And I know many of us have discussed this with COVID I think that shined a bright spotlight on what we knew was happening anyway, and particularly for women of color in particular in terms of the challenges with regard to job loss and all of the challenges. I remember, I think it was December of 2020 and 100 percent of the job loss was women of color, 100%. That's a lot to crawl out of.

And I know that we're not going to turn the ship around overnight, but appreciate your good work. Happy to support this today. Also, given the larger context around what we're facing with regard to access to safe and legal abortion and how we are a beacon of hope, I think for many people across this country, this work needs to continue. And anything that I can do either legislatively or here within the context of the Budget Committee, happy to support it. So thank you.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Madam Majority Leader.

Well, our Director, Martinez, I want to thank you for the work that you have put in since you've become the Executive Director. I think that more and more we see that the rest of California looks to the Commission when there's an issue that affects women and just about every issue affects women to get your input. And I appreciate that you've put yourself in that position because of the work and the quality of work that the Commission has put out.

I absolutely will be supporting this today also. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I actually really appreciate our step four screenshot in your annual report. So thank you for that. And I just want to echo the comments of my colleagues as well. Under your leadership and the investments being made to the Commission, we're seeing just the successes. Right. And how important it is when we invest in women and girls, the State of California flourishes, and I think that's a good thing. The recommendation is to adopt the spring finance letter.

Can I get a motion and a second? 2nd unanimous. Well, let's do a roll call, please.

Roll Call

So grateful. Thank you all.

Thank you. Have a great one. Thank you. Appreciate the flexibility. We're going to go back to issue number four, the Department of Veteran Affairs Calvet spring budget proposals. Thank you. Please come on up. We almost had. Please begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee Members, Calvet, the California Department of Veterans Affairs is requesting 2.2 positions and $365,000 in 23-24 and 10 positions and 1.325 million ongoing thereafter for the first phase of the ramp up of our new skilled nursing facility being built in the Yompville Veterans home. So we're really excited to talk about this new skilled facility. It's going to be a great modern building for our veterans.

Currently, our veterans are being housed in a depression era built facility that was not designed for skilled nursing facility. So we have veterans that are sharing rooms and in bathrooms, and in some cases, we have veterans that are three or four veterans that are sharing restrooms. So this new facility will be providing en suite rooms for our veterans in a more modern and homelike environment. And we're really excited about being able to provide these facilities for our veterans. So with that, I'm open to any questions.

Let's do all three proposals at once, and then we'll go to LAO Department of Finance and any questions?

Okay, sure. Yes, there's a couple of groups here for these. So I'll go to the second BCP. So, my name is Thomas Martin. I'm chief of future operations and planning for the Veterans homes. So the second proposal for Calvet is for a reappropriation of $950,000 one time for an assessment of the rector reservoir and dam.

It funds a study that assesses the water flow and its impact on the Rector creek and that ecosystem to help inform us how to better manage that water flow, provide the appropriate amount of water for the creek as well as for water for our facility in the neighborhood community, and is a key component of a settlement that we reached as part of a lawsuit from 2016. So, again, this is a reappropriation.

This has been delayed solely because of the lack of rain from the last handful of years. The majority of the study has been completed. We've been able to assess the ecosystem and the fish, the habitat, those sorts of things. The remaining part of the study is the water, which we have not had. So now that the rain has been better for this past year, we will have enough data to be able to finish the study.

We just don't have all, everything set just yet because of the lack of rain for the last few years. So this proposal would simply extend that existing reappropriation one more year to give us that time to complete it. So that's all I have for that. I appreciate your support on that. I think we'll need to pull up the last group.

Good afternoon. My name is Daniel Mawalam. I'm the chief counsel of Calvet. We're asking for $8.6 million to pay a judgment following a jury trial in San Diego County arising out of an accident at our ChuLA Vista home. And that's the briefest explanation possible. But I'm available for any questions.

Department of Finance. No additional comments on the reappropriation and the settlement costs, but just 1.0 of clarification on the initial support for the Yonville sniff. Calvin is indeed planning to hire those 10 positions in 2324. But when we say 2.2, it's referring to full time equivalents or personnel years, because the plan is to bring eight positions on effective April 2024, and then two positions effective June 2024.

Thank you. We'll go to the Department of Finance, followed by Anthony Franzoy,

Ginni Bella with the Legislative Analyst Office. We've reviewed the proposals and we have no concerns to raise for the Subcommittee.

Thank you. Any comments or questions from the Committee? Madam majority leader?

I know I had questions last time on Yountville, and I still have questions. How many veterans do we have housed in Yachtville?

At the home? Currently we have. Apologize. I don't have a total. Let me do the math really quick. Do you have the total?

Yeah. So, currently we have 876 budgeted beds, of which 577 are filled. Thank you. Of the 299 that are vacant, about 59 of them are in the sniff. And the sniff memory care. Okay.

Well, I know that I'll have another opportunity. I continue to have serious questions and doubts about continuing with Yountville, and I know that the amount of money that is being expended there, I'm concerned that the funding could be used to house more veterans. And I know that talking about repurposing Yountville has been a subject in the past. Are we past the time when we can repurpose it?

So this proposal is for a specific building on the campus.

I understand my question is more General purpose. What you're asking for here, these are settlements. This is something that we have to be able to provide the funding for. My question is of a more General nature.

Correct. So, yes, parts of the campus we can still discuss other opportunities for, and it's still something that the Department has been exploring. We've had a number of conversations, including with other departments and veterans groups, about some options for how to use the campus. There are restrictions by law and by deed on what the property can be used for. Perhaps the largest thing, though, that we've determined and also that we're hearing from veterans groups, is that skilled nursing in particular, to include which this building would enhance.

That is not something that's provided by basically anyone else for veterans. The federal VA provides some skilled nursing, but it tends to be more specialized. But otherwise, there aren't. For example, as far as I'm aware, there are zero nonprofits or other organizations that provide skilled nursing specifically for veterans because it's a difficult, complicated, expensive, et cetera, et cetera type of program. There aren't a lot of alternative providers. There's basically zero alternative providers aside from the state and the federal VA.

So in our conversations with veterans groups and so forth, community partners, while we've had discussions about maybe there's other opportunities to do with, we can use some of the campuses for, including Yachtville. It's always centered around. There's always been a focus that the campus would still be focused on skilled nursing because there's no other game in town.

We're talking about 615 acres, right? We don't need 615 acres to provide this service to our veterans. So a lot of this is land, and it's prime land that could be used for other purposes or could be repurposed for something else or sold outright so that we can then purchase somewhere else and provide a whole lot more care for so many more veterans. That's still a concern for me. What is your thought on that?

The deed granting the land to the state specifically requires that the land be used for the veteran Members of the home. So there's a limitation on it. That doesn't mean that there aren't opportunities to do things, but things like selling the land, for example. I'm not an attorney. I'm not going to pretend that I could answer this concretely, but I think at the very least, it would be challenging to try to be able to do something like that because the deed is very specific about how the property can be used.

But that's why I ask, when are you able to repurpose it or to sell it? The deed restriction is not forever, right?

There's no time limit on the deed.

So it is forever in perpetuity.

I'm not a property lawyer. I can say that would be an.

Important question to find out.

But that is my understanding, though, yes.

Okay. That would be new compared to what we were told previously from the Little Hoover report, but certainly something that I would love to explore further because the whole purpose is to provide services to as many veterans as possible. There is a waiting list of veterans that need services, need care, and if we have something that's available that we can repurpose to serve more veterans, we've got to find a way to do that. There's no reason with 615 acres, there's no reason to have any veteran on a waiting list. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. A question to your attorney related to BCP three. On the settlement cost at the Chula Vista home. What steps has the Department taken to prevent any future incidents? When will all the remediation steps be completed? And has Calvet surveyed the Chula Vista home and other homes for potential similar hazards?

Well, let me address your third question first. This was a unique surface feature, unique to the Chula Vista home. I don't believe it exists elsewhere. The exact reason for its construction was subject to differing testimony, but the most persuasive testimony was it was a feature added to prevent wheelchairs from rolling backwards into an active driveway. So it had a legitimate therapeutic purpose. Whether or not that condition on the surface of the property was a dangerous condition is subject to dispute. But the trial was held.

The jury believed that it was and found against Calvet. Now, with regard to the remediation of that issue, once there has been evidence adduced that is a dangerous condition, we made remedial steps to prevent further accidents in that area. The first one was relatively Low cost, high effect, and that was to paint the feature with a high contrast yellow paint to make it more observable to ordinary pedestrians.

The next step in that remediation effort will be more expensive and requires a state contract, which is a more time consuming process, and that is to put up a fence to prevent access to that area. So we are undertaking that process. It's ongoing as we speak, but due to state contracting requirements, it takes a little longer.

Now, as far as a survey of the other homes, to my knowledge, and I don't believe we have not done a survey to answer your question directly, but to my knowledge, there is no similar feature at any other home. That's not to say planted equipment is not in need of repairing other homes. That's always the case. And that's why periodically calvet comes back for budget change proposals to remedy those conditions.

But as I sit here today, I'm not aware of any similar condition that would provide a similar threat to public harm that arose in this case.

And just to be clear, just specifically to the Chula Vista home. So the remediation that took place ensures that someone walking will notice the feature and not harm themselves, but it also prevents anyone from the initial purpose, which was to avoid them if they're in a wheelchair, from rolling out into the driveway, correct?

Yes, absolutely. One of the remediation steps that would have been possible would have been to remove that double curve. That could have been removed, but we chose to paint it and leave it in place.

Okay, got it. Thank you very much. There are no additional comments or questions. We are holding this item open for now. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We are now down to our public comment. Okay, great. The phone number to connect is on the Committee website and should also be on the screen if you are watching over the Internet. The phone number is 877-692-8957 Toll Free Public Access code is 131-5447 we are taking public comment in the hearing room and over the phone. Is there public comment in the hearing room? Please come forward to the microphone.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members Chris Zgraggen with Aprea and Micheli on behalf of the California Workforce Association, which represents California's 45 local workforce development boards, we support issue number one, the Governor's Budget request for $78.1 million ongoing General Fund to expand and make ongoing the California for all youth Job Corps program. This program has already shown promising results in providing technical skills and work experience to young Californians.

Just want to highlight one program in Anaheim where 50 young people have enrolled and participated in the program to date, with their ages ranging from 16 to 30 and an average age of 21. And of those, one group included 10 high school youth and one recent graduate who participated in an urban youth gardening project where participants gained technical skills in regenerative and organic farming practices, irrigation systems, and crop rotation, which resulted in 3000 pounds of produce having been harvested and donated to local families.

We urge the Legislature to approve this funding and appreciate your time. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Meg Snyder. I'm with Axiom Advisors here on behalf of the service year alliance in support of item one for funding for both the Climate Action Corps and the Youth Jobs Corps programs. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members Tiffany White with SEIU California in support of the appropriation to OPR for the Racial Equity Commission. Thank you so much.

Madam Chair and Members Genesis Gonzalez. On behalf of Lieutenant Governor Lenny Kunalakis. The lieutenant Governor is in support of item five and is grateful to see that the budget includes funding for the Commission on the status of Women and girls. However, in order for the Commission to continue awards to award statewide grants and programming for underserved communities, the lieutenant Governor is respectfully requesting a budget allocation of an additional 7.9 million, which the Commission has received in the last two years. The funding is critical to sustaining the women's recovery response programming to assist women statewide and provide critical research. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, my name is Rita Medina. I'm the Deputy Director of policy and advocacy at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Chirla. We're here today in support of item one, the extension, or I should say, the current investment and ongoing expansion of California youth Jobs Corps and specifically their efforts to expand the program to DACA recipients, as well as AB 540 eligible individuals and undocumented immigrant youth. This program expansion comes at a really critical time. California is home to nearly 200,000 DACA recipients.

But also every year, we know that 27,000 undocumented high school students exit our high schools, and especially now that there is not the same access to the DACA program. We have a lot of students asking, what's next? What's my career path? And we see this as a really critical program opportunity for those youth, and it's also centering our state in equity, which our Governor is very committed to. And so we hope that the Legislature will support this expansion.

In addition, I also want to align my comments with those of SEIU, also in support of the dollars that are going towards the racial equity Committee. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Tasia Stevens. I'm a legislative advocate, and on behalf of Catalyst California, we just want to thank you and the governor's Administration for the 3.8 million allocation for the Racial Equity Commission as a part of Calus, California. Advancing racial equity is one of our core main pillars, and so we look forward working with the Administration and the Legislature to implement this Bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Seeing no additional public comment in the room, we're going to go to the phone lines operator.

Of course. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a public comment, please press one, then zero. We'll be going to line 21. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Tyler Rinde with the California alliance of Child and Family Services. The California alliance represents community based organizations that provide services to children, youth and families across mental health and child welfare. We were strong supporters of SB 17 in 2022, authored by Senator Pan to create the Office of Racial Equity. We respectfully request an amendment to the trailer Bill Language to include behavioral health and child welfare as areas of focus.

Data shows that BIPOC communities have the lowest access to behavioral health services and significant racial disparities of involvement in the child welfare system. We believe that the Racial Equity Commission can be a catalyst to address systemic racism and inequities in government policies. Thank you.

Next we'll be going to line 24. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, chair Carrillo and Members, my name is Stacie Hiromoto and I'm the Director of REMHDCO, the Racial and Ethnic Mental Health Disparities Coalition. I'd like to speak to issue two. REMHDCO, along with other nonprofit cbos, strongly supported the creation and funding of the Racial Equity Commission and believe the Commission can be of great assistance in advancing racial equity in the state.

We also strongly support additional language to the budget trailer Bill that would include behavioral health and child welfare as areas of focus for the Commission. As a Member of the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, chair Korea, we know that you are aware of how the COVID pandemic only exacerbated the mental health disparities for underserved communities, but particularly for children and youth from BIPOC and LGBTQ plus communities. In order to improve the situation, extra attention must be given to behavioral health and child welfare.

Unless this language is included, we are not positive that these issues will be given the weight of other policy areas in regards to the work of the new Commission. Rumco would also like to support the request for $149,000 ongoing General Fund Fund one position and increase staffing capacity of the California Commission on Asian and Pacific Island or American Affairs. Rumco would like to work more closely with this Commission on issues related to behavioral health and we believe they need the additional capacity.

Thank you for consideration and hopefully support for the additional language. Thank you.

Next we'll be going to line 23. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, chair, career and Members, my name is Rebecca Gonzales and I represent the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, and we represent social workers with a degree in social work. Under issue number two, I want to echo the comments of Tyler Rindy and Stacie Hiromoto and call for the Racial Equity Commission to include behavioral health and child welfare as areas of focus.

Despite the expansions of Medi Cal and its role as a vital provider of behavioral health care to Low income Californians, there are still significant racial and ethnic disparities in access and utilization of services. Also, despite ongoing efforts to improve outcomes for youth involved or at risk of involvement in child welfare, BIPOC youth are more likely to be referred to child welfare and endure poorer outcomes.

We believe adding child welfare and behavioral health to the work of the Commission will help to achieve the goal of racial equity. Thank you.

Next we'll be going to line 16. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo Members, my name is Madison Dolane, and I'm calling on behalf of the nonprofit organization Prevention Institute in support of issue items number two, specifically, the Racial Equity Commission. In order to realize racial equity, state government must address implicit biases in our systems, procedures, and the way of governing that continue to marginalize communities of color from services, resources and participation in our government.

We believe that the Racial Equity Commission can help our state government be a stronger leader for racial equity, and it's for these reasons that prevention Institute is in strong support of the budget allocation for the Racial Equity Commission. Thank you.

And there's currently no other public comments in the room or on the line madame chair.

Thank you, operator and again, thank you to all of our panelists today. And so for and Members of the dais, this Assembly budget support hearing is concluded. Thank you.