Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Public Safety

We'd like to call Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number Six on Public Safety to order. And good afternoon. Today we'll be covering issues from the Department of Justice, Military Department, and the Office of Emergency Services. All public comment will be taken at the end of our last item, and each person will have up to 1 minute each for public comment. We will not be taking any votes today. Speakers are listed in speaking order for each of the items.

Please keep your remarks within the allotted time communicated to you by my staff, and remember to introduce yourselves prior to speaking. We will begin with the Department of Justice. For the first three issues, we will have the same group of panelists. All three items panelists Chris Ryan, Chief Operations, Department of Justice, Ashley Harp, Budget Officer, Department of Justice, Anthony Franzoia, Department of Finance, Emma Jungworth, Department of Finance, and Anita Lee, Legislative Analysis Office. Please go ahead, Mr. Ryan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris Ryan with the Department of Justice, Chief of the Division of Operations. Thank you for this opportunity to present our budget items to you today, and if there's any issues with the microphone, please let me know. Brief Overview of our Department. The Department of Justice is primarily made up of four program areas in the Legal Services Division, the Division of Law Enforcement, the California Justice Information Services Division, and Administration. The Department's proposed budget is 1.3 billion, approximately 4% less than the current year's resources available.

Approximately 38% of our Department's budget is General Fund, and the remaining budget comes from approximately 35 special funds. The proposed budget includes approximately 5,900 positions across the state in various office buildings, labs, field offices, task forces across the state from San Diego to the Oregon border. The Legal Division or Legal Services Division, as we refer to it, is made up of the Office of General Counsel, our Civil Law Division, Crim. Division, Public Rights, and our Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse.

The Division of Law Enforcement is, as it sounds, our law enforcement division. And we have some folks here today that will speak to you about some of their activities. And then our California Justice Information Services Division is our information technology and also the division that collects many of the crime statistics and data relative to our mandates throughout the Penal Code sections. So with me today is Ashley Harp, our Budget Officer, and we're prepared to answer any questions you may have about any of our budget proposals.

So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other testimony?

Not at this time.

All right. Department of Finance?

Anthony Franzoia, Department of Finance. No additional comments at this time.

Thank you. LAO? Thank you so much for that. Just a couple questions that I would have is how many total budgeted positions does the Department of Justice have? That's one. And can you tell us how many of those are vacant?

So we have approximately 5,900 positions, authorized positions, in our budget. And in terms of vacancies, I don't have the exact number with me. It kind of ebbs and flows, but it runs at approximately 12% Department-wide. But we could definitely get that information back to the Committee staff.

Thank you so much for that. And as you get that information back, could we also look at what areas we're seeing the most vacancies at within the Department of Justice in those areas? Thank you. We'll move on to issue two.

Thank you.

I think Anthony is going to lead that. Yeah.

Correct. Good afternoon, Chair Ramos, Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Anthony Franzoia, and as you said, I'll be presenting on issue number two. So, to address the projected budget shortfall, the 2024-25 Governor's Budget includes a budgetary loan of $100 million from the Litigation Deposits Fund, or the LDF, to the General Fund in 2425 from idle resources not required for currently projected operational or programmatic purposes.

This is in addition to the $400 million budgetary loan that was included in the 2023 Budget Act, again from the LDF to the General Fund, for a total loan of $500 million. To clarify, DOJ and the Administration don't intend for these loans to either negatively impact the LDF or the various special funds receiving resources from the LDF or to signal any type of ongoing reductions.

These loans are purely intended as tools to help close the budget shortfall and unless something radical changes in the next few months, we agree that the proposed $100 million loan is viable. For that proposed loan, we made the decision to use the LDF as the source of the loan, given the best available information at the time during the budget development process.

However, and the LAO, we'll speak to this now that DOJ has transferred many resources out of the LDF pursuant to Chapter 45, statutes of 2023, which is AB 127, the state government trailer bill from last year, we're reevaluating our proposal and assessing which of the special funds that receive resources from the LDF would be more appropriate sources for the loan.

As part of the May Revision, we will propose again, as the LAO recommends, an update to this proposed loan that uses the various special funds as sources for the loans rather than the LDF itself. So that concludes my comments and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for that. Any others from the Department of Justice as we move on to the LAO?

Anita Lee with the LAO. If you'd like to follow along. Our recommendations are summarized for you on the agenda starting on page six. We do have three recommendations for you on this issue, and the Department of Justice, sorry, DOF, Department of Finance has already kind of briefly touched on a few of them.

So, first, we do recommend that the Legislature reject the proposal to borrow an additional 100 million from the LDF and have that as a loan to the General Fund, as we believe it will be difficult for the fund to support it. And we don't think it's an ideal source in combination. This is because, as Anthony mentioned, as part of the 2023-24 budget, the Legislature made various changes to increase oversight of the LDF and the litigation deposit monies.

And so, most notably, one of those actions was the requirement to transfer most litigation funds associated with generally resolved cases to state special funds that were subject to legislative oversight. And so that's been accomplished. In addition to that, there is the $400 million loan that was approved as part of the last year budget. So, in combination, this leaves, as of December 2023, about 157 million left in the LDF.

But all of those monies are generally tied to cases where they're either very narrow purposes for their use or unresolved cases. So we don't think that that's an ideal source to borrow from. Instead, we think that there are four DOJ special funds that received about 455,000,000 in transfers from the LDF, and we think that those are better sources to borrow from.

And so, in line with that, our second recommendation is for the Legislature to direct DOJ to provide, by May Revision, a list of the cases whose litigation proceeds could be used to support an additional $100 million loan, along with a special fund from which those cases would be coming from.

In compiling that list, that would allow DOJ to examine its current and future litigation activities and to identify how much could be borrowed from one or more of four DOJ special funds that receive these dollars without impacting their operational activities. This list is also going to be really helpful for the Legislature to monitor repayments of the monies, to make sure, when we get the money back, they're used consistent with the underlying court settlements and court judgments for those cases.

So then our final recommendation is for the Legislature to take that list that DOJ would provide, make any changes you think are necessary, and then modify the Governor's Budget to reflect those loans from the individual special funds, rather than the LDF. For any loan that is made from a special fund, we would also recommend the Legislature include reporting language such as if there are any restrictions on the use of the monies, which is similar to the language that we required for that $400 million loan.

And so that reporting language is really helpful because it would help the Legislature monitor basically the status of the loan repayments and then ensure that any monies that come back are used appropriately once they're repaid. Happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Any other testimony? Hearing none. I want to thank the collaboration moving forward with some of those recommendations and working together to bring back to this Committee some of those items that could further have discussion on. Thank you for that. We will move on to item three. Mr. Ryan, looks like you're back up.

I'm going to defer to my colleague Ashley Harp for the presentation here on this one.

Thank you.

Thank you. Ashley Harp, Budget Officer with DOJ. The Department of Justice, in collaboration with the Department of Consumer Affairs, requests trailer bill language to implement a fee increase from $9 to $15 to support continued operation of the mandated Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System, otherwise known as the CURES System. The fee increase is required due to a recent reduction in the fee from $11 to $9 in April 2023, combined with increasing technology, vendor costs, and standard operational cost increases.

Welcome your questions on this proposal.

Thank you so much. Department of Finance?

No, there's no comments.

LAO? Just a few questions. Is there a reason why this should be done in a trailer bill and not through a policy bill?

The Department proposed this as part of a trailer bill because it directly relates to the Department's ability to expend its budget.

So it's tied directly to the budget?

Yes.

What do you think of the actual impact if the fee is not raised?

Absent the fee increase, the Department would be subject to operating within the confines of the reduced $9 fee, which is insufficient to support our current operations, particularly our staff costs and vendor contracts.

Thank you. I just want to thank all the panelists for issues 1, 2, 3, and 4. As now, we move on to issue four.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. 1, 2, and 3. We move on to issue four, fentanyl enforcement program and drug interdiction continuation proposal and update. Stefan Woolery, Director, Bureau of Investigations, Department of Justice Michael Redding, Special Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Major General Matthew Beevers, General, Military Department Jared Sippel, Legislative Analysis Office, Jessie Romine, Department of Finance, and Anthony Franzoia, Department of Finance. Go ahead, Mr. Woolery.

Good afternoon, Chair Ramos and distinguished honorable Committee Members. Greetings from the Department of Justice's Bureau of Investigation. My name is Stephen Woolery, and I'm the Director for the Bureau of Investigation. I also want to recognize my colleague, Michael Redding, Special Assistant Attorney General at DOJ. It is indeed my honor to be here today with all of you to provide a Fentanyl Enforcement Program, or FEP update. The three DOJ FEP teams are strategically located in San Diego, Los Angeles, and the Bay Area.

DOJ's San Diego FEP team is embedded with the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigation Task Force. This task force is called the Fentanyl Abatement Suppression Team, or FAST. The FAST task force with FEP is conducting investigations at the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego and Imperial County. These investigations target middle to upper-level fentanyl smugglers who transport larger fentanyl quantities directly from Mexico into California utilizing the ports of entry.

And I can tell you that San Diego alone, since the FEP team was stood up, has seized over 1 million fentanyl pills. Next, the Los Angeles team is fully staffed and essentially serves the Southern California area, working with agencies such as the Orange County Sheriff's Office to the south, the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office to the east, and all the way up to San Luis Obispo County to the north.

Practically every day, the Los Angeles team is conducting fentanyl investigations or partnering in an ad hoc way with local agencies to augment resources, authorities, and the expertise for an assortment of impactful enforcement activities. And lastly, the Bay Area team. This is essentially our newest team of the three teams in terms of being fully staffed. Their work is integrated already into the fentanyl enforcement investigations underway in the Greater Bay Area.

Specifically, the Bay Area team is working with the Department of Homeland Security, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, the Oakland Police Department, amongst many other local agencies. And then, as I close, I just want to share with you a few data points in terms of our statistical accomplishments. So, first of all, the number of fentanyl pills that we've seized is well north of 1 million pills. In terms of fentanyl powder. We've seized 165 pounds of fentanyl powder.

In terms of the number of arrests, we've made 83 felony arrests. And then lastly, we have 51 open criminal investigations across the state. And as I conclude, I'm happy to take any questions at this time.

Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll move now to Michael Redding, Special Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice.

Good afternoon. Honored to be here. Michael Redding, Special Assistant Attorney General. I have nothing further to add to Director Woolery's testimony, but happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Move on to Major General Matthew Beevers, General, Military Department.

Chair Ramos, it's a pleasure to be here today. Thank you so much for your time. I am Matt Beevers, the Adjutant General of California. The Governor's Budget this year includes $15 million appropriation FY budget year 24-25 and another $15 million appropriation budget year 25-26. That's to support federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to interdict dangerous and lethal narcotics, including fentanyl.

With the previous appropriation they've had the last two years, we've been able to add more than 100 service members to the program and deploy service members into key areas across the state, including the four ports of entry along our southern border. Support efforts to interdict fentanyl in cities like San Francisco and add additional criminal analysts at all four of the state's high-intensity drug trafficking areas.

Over the last two years, we've seen an extraordinary return on the state's investment, more than 1000% increase in Cal Gaurd-supported seizures since 2021. Our work with law enforcement agencies has resulted in $1 billion of fentanyl removed from the streets of our state and out of the pockets of cartel bosses. With that, be happy to take your questions when appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Department of Finance?

Jesse Roman, Department of Finance. The Administration would like to reiterate the importance of providing continued support for the counter-drug task force through 25-26. The initial investment in the 22 Budget Act for the counter-drug task force, as Major General had mentioned, had supported additional service Members that were able to help with the seizure of approximately $1 billion worth of illegal drugs in 22-23. As these resources would provide continued support, the Administration is seeking to sustain the Military Department's drug interdiction efforts.

We're available for any questions the Committee may have.

Thank you, LAO?

Thank you, Chair Ramos. Jared Sippel with the LAO. For the Military Department's drug interdiction proposal, we're generally recommending that the Legislature weigh this new General Fund proposal against its other legislative priorities as it seeks to address the state's budget problem. On the one hand, as General Beevers has noted, CMD has provided data that show that fentanyl and methamphetamine seizures have increased since the state provided this new state funding a couple of years ago.

This data is promising and the proposal would have merit if it ultimately results in fewer drug users getting access to these dangerous drugs. On the other hand, if effective increased counter-drug efforts have the effect of reducing supply which can lead to higher drug prices. And so higher drug prices can have unintended effects depending on how drug traffickers or drug users respond to these higher prices.

Moreover, as our office has reported, the state is facing a budget problem, and this proposal would add General Fund pressure over the next two years. We, therefore, think the Legislature will want to apply a higher bar to its review of new General Fund proposals, especially ones such as this, that are considered discretionary because the state could continue to rely on federally funded efforts in the near term.

And so with all of these points in mind, we just think all of these are important factors that should be considered as the Legislature weighs this proposal. We would note that if the Legislature does approve this proposal, it would likely need to find offsetting reductions elsewhere in the budget in light of the state's budget problem. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Department of Finance. Would you like to respond? No? Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you for the topic and the panelists that are here. And we are deeply appreciative of the Governor's leadership and the State Legislature's leadership on the fentanyl crisis and this epidemic in the State of California.

In addition, the enforcement activities led by the Department of Justice and the California Military Department, I believe we also need to strengthen our public health and education approach so that people truly understand how deadly this drug is. Different outreach campaigns. I mean, we've seen how a little bit of powder next to a penny was a lethal dose. I think more education needs to be done in that aspect of it. You also mentioned within the funding aspect, there's outreach to tribal communities.

Can you elaborate a little bit more on that, how that outreach is happening, and if there's any success or barriers that we need to address?

So I'll attack that question twofold. Number one, we do support the tribes in a couple of fashions. First, under the high-intensity drug trafficking areas. So we've operated as far north as Hoopa in the north, Cahuilla in the south.

But primarily our work is done by, through, and for the high-intensity drug trafficking areas, where we provide criminal analysts to get after understanding the criminal networks that are operating across the state, not only in the tribes, but across the entire state, tribal nations, but across the entire state. So I would offer that it's really twofold. We do do engagements specifically at tribal nations, but primarily our work is done by, through, and for the high-intensity drug trafficking areas.

Thank you. Thank you for that. And thank you for the collaboration. We know that some of those areas do border territories in those areas that need to have resources. So thank you for that. But also, I guess, to Mr. Woolery, can you tell me geographically where you are seeing the largest proportion of fentanyl seized and people arrested?

So I can speak to where DOJ resources are and how we impact those agencies. So San Diego and L.A. So essentially, Southern California is where we see the largest seizures, and that's where we have, most of our arrests are concentrated in Southern California.

Thank you. Any others want to elaborate on that?

Chair, I just want to make one more point. You talked about education and engagement, and I think it's important to recognize that within our Counternarcotics Program in the Military Department, we engage middle and high school students to the rate of 177 different students. There's different schools, probably 150,000 individual middle and high school folks that we've engaged over the last federal fiscal year with a message of resilient living. This is not your grandfather's just say no to drugs program.

This is really getting into the weeds and trying to change these kids attitudes, to live a meaningful life, to lead a life where you can stay away from narcotics by building those resiliency can be taught, and we are teaching it to folks, to kids across the state.

Well, thank you. Thank you for that. And it leads to another question. Fentanyl has come, and it's been at the highlight of different news, and it's impacting all of our districts in the State of California. So the education component is big, that we need to continue to do that, but also we need to make sure that adequate resources are being given to address the issue.

Do you believe that adequate resources are in the budget this year, or do you believe that there should be more down in the future years? Ongoing funding?

Yeah. Jessie Romine, Department of Finance. I can speak to the Military Department and generally, the budget plan that we have. Sorry, it's weird. Reaching over and generally the budget plan for CMD's investment, it's really seeking to provide continued support to what was included in 2022. So in being mindful of the existing budget situation, the budget really provides just a continuation of that support.

We understand what the outcomes were with the 2022 investment, and it is a significant problem, which is why the Governor's Budget reflects these resources.

Chairman, I'd say from the Department of Justice's perspective, always more investment is always going to lead to more results. That said, the investment that you all put in two years ago is really starting to bear fruit at the Department, and we're really starting to see both in terms of staffing up and in terms of the development of long-term investigations, that we're really at a point where things are cooking, for lack of a better word.

So at this point, I think we're very satisfied with what we've received and expect to continue to be successful with that budget allocation.

Thank you. And the question is based around consistent funding because the project or fentanyl has been around now for. It's still fresh. Right? So we don't know how it's going to continue to play out. So continuing funding, I think, is something that's drastically needed. And thank you for addressing the tribal communities. We see that that's a big area.

When you start to look at the charts that are here in this document, we see that per capita wise Native Americans are affected higher than any others here in the State of California. So thank you for that. Thank you for all your testimony. Any questions from my colleagues? Assembly Member Lackey.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. I don't really have a question. I do have just a reminder that this is one of the aspects where enforcement is actually a form of prevention. And that sounds odd, but it's actually factual when you're talking about the commodity that we are that is so absolutely poisonous. It's not just utilized for impairment or party circumstances. It's actually a deadly poison. And a lot of times the consumer has no idea that it's even present. And that's really a calamity.

And so in the education aspect, unfortunately, that's one of the aspects that's hard to measure because you don't really know what you prevented when you do that. But I really do think we need to invest heavily on the prevention aspect by way of enforcement and education, and they both need to be partners. And I think too often we're comfortable just with the education aspect. And that is an important aspect. Don't discount or misunderstand what I'm saying because it really is an important component.

However, it needs to be coupled with enforcement action. And this military presence is a very big partner in curbing these numbers are, if they don't awaken you, I don't know what it takes to awaken you, the thousands of people who are dying in California only. So this is a national problem. It's not just here, but we happen to be a border state, so it's pretty convenient for them to stop here because there's plenty of market for it. And that's unfortunate for all of us.

But I just want to remind everybody that this is one of the unique situations where enforcement is actually a preventive tool, and I hope we'll continue to invest because I know right now everybody is up for being cut, everybody with the enormity of this particular budget circumstance. But when you're talking about saving lives, that's not the place to cut, folks. If we cut, we need to be very prudent in the way we do it.

So I'm hoping that we'll see this for what it really is, enforcement as a preventive tool, and I hope we'll continue to support it.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. Any other questions? Comments? Thank you for the panelists for your testimony, and we'll be moving on to issue five. We have Eric Swanson, Deputy Director, Finance and Administration, Cal OES, Vy Nguyen, Department of Finance, Tess Scherkenback, Department of Finance, Drew Soderberg, Legislative Analysis Office, and Jared Sippel, Legislative Analysis Office. Deputy Director Swanson, whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chair Ramos and Members. I'm Eric Swanson, Deputy Director of Finance and Administration for CalOES, and with me next to me was supposed to be our Director, Nancy Ward. She was under the weather this morning, so she wanted to give some introductory remarks about the Department, and she hopes at some later point she can do that for this Committee. Given that she hopes she invited back, I'm not going to recreate her entire update, but let me just give you some general facts about OES.

We're charged with anticipating, planning, and preparing to coordinate critical resources and support to impacted communities, to protect lives and property, and to support their recovery from disasters. As you know, over the last several years, the state has experienced an unprecedented number of emergencies and disasters, including severe drought, catastrophic wildfires, power grid outages, and challenges, earthquakes, COVID-19, and intensive storms with severe flooding. 15 of the most destructive fires in the state's history have occurred since 2015, with seven of those occurring in the last four years.

The Governor's Budget proposes 3 billion or 530 million General Fund and 1,909 positions for CalOES. We'd like to thank this Committee for your continued support in providing resources to ensure we fulfill our role serving as the state's leadership hub during all major emergencies and disasters. I have colleagues in the audience if I need to phone a friend, but I am available to answer any questions you may have at this moment.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Department of Finance?

Hi, Tess Scherkenback, Department of Finance. We're here to answer any questions you might have, but no comments at this time.

Thank you. LAO?

No comments at this time.

Thank you so much. Any questions from the dais? Comments? Mr. Lackey.

I have some concerns. I mean, obviously, as I mentioned earlier, I truly understand the devastating deficit that we're faced with. And so I know that no cuts are going to be popular ever, but it seems sometimes we could be penny rich and nickel poor in some of these cuts. We need to be careful on that. These cuts aren't going to result in a greater cost than the immediate loss that we get. And this home-hardening one is one of the ones I'm talking about.

When we fail to harden these circumstances, when these fires come, the losses are potentially, well, clearly greater. And so I worry that that might be a little bit, maybe we could back off. I'm not saying eliminate them completely, but I'm saying maybe soften some of the impacts of this home hardening. And also what always seems to be on the chopping block and too comfortable of a cut are the actual victims of crimes. And that's another very onerous cut here.

And I'm hoping that we might be able to soften some of those and maybe go into a different category to find those extra funds to pull back on. One thing I'm very pleased to see, because I think it's the gun buyback program. I think that's a very ineffective program, truthfully, because usually the people that are willing to sell their guns aren't the ones that are going to be going to shoot up schools, and that's who we're trying to curb.

And those are the people that we're trying to, I don't know, address, for lack of a better term. And so I think that that is one to be very proud of. I'm very thankful to see that that's done because I know that there's some other feelings about that program, but those are the feelings that I share. And I'm just saying that this is a really hard time for all of us. So I'm not going to be super critical. I'm just making that remark.

And the fact that I hope that we can at least consider the return on some of these cuts. I think they're more impactful than others. And so that's all I have.

Thank you so much for that. Any other comments from the dais? Hearing none. I have a few questions. Any other testimony from the panelists at all? No? It's a question on the budget that we're asking. Can you tell us how many of your budget positions are vacant? And if you don't have the answer, please follow through with it.

Yeah, I think the last check I had, our vacancy rate was around 20%. I can give that, I know I heard the earlier testimony. I can give that to you by our directorate so you could kind of take a focused approach on it. But that was the last update I had.

And then what areas are you seeing the most vacancy in? Which departments?

It's always hard to recruit for emergency managers. It's a technical skill, and it's often a job that requires long hours and will require folks to have certain skill sets and certain skills that are sort of a niche position, and we need them both at the local level and the state level. So that's difficult. And always, of course, it's the typical things that every Department experiences.

IT positions are hard to recruit for and also entry-level positions where it requires at least some standard of college education and starting off at a lower job, those are hard to recruit for as well.

Thank you. Thank you for that, and thank you for all your testimony. As we now we move on to issue number six with Eric Swanson, Deputy Director, Finance Administration, CalOES. Gina Bucciere, Associate Director, Grants Management, CalOES. Vy Nguyen, Department of Finance, Tess Scherkenbeck, Department of Finance, Drew Soderberg, Legislative Analyst Office, Jared Sippel, Legislative Analyst Office.

Yeah for this next issue, it involves the California State Nonprofit Security Grant Program, which provides funding support for target hardening and other physical security enhancements to nonprofit organizations that are at high risk for violent attacks and hate crimes due to ideology, beliefs, or mission. The 2023 Budget Act appropriated 20 million for this program, and then in October 2023, the Administration, with the concurrence of the Legislature, approved an additional 20 million for security assistance to provide nonprofit organizations, doubling the program funding allocation.

Cal OES has received more applications for this grant than we have for our grant program in our entire history. We've received 1,250 proposals, totaling 255.5 million in requests. This surpasses last year's record of 751 proposals. Using in-house subject matter experts, we have rated these proposals and are anticipating award announcements for the program by the end of this month. As you said, my colleague Ms. Buccieri-Harrington and I are available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any other testimony on that? Department of Finance?

No additional comments.

LAO? Thank you. And we know that there's been a lot of requests and those things there with everything going on in the world and the nonprofit situation that's there. Because of the delay in awarding these grants, we are hearing that nonprofits are holding off on purchasing security enhancements as they are waiting to see if they will be awarded a grant or not. What is the status of and when will these grants be awarded? Will go out to the nonprofits?

Yeah. I think what's important to know is we've received so many applications that it's taken us a little bit longer than we expected to go through those and rate those. We've done a couple of things in this area. One thing, and I'll let Ms. Buccieri-Harrington, correct me if I'm wrong, but we extended the use of the funds past what's normal for a grant all the way to December 2025.

25 months.

So although folks could start spending if they receive the award, actually back to January, this is December. We are extending the award, too, so you can spend for a longer period of time than typically for a grant as well.

Any further? So how would that--by extending it, would that allow those nonprofits to start to move forward on security equipment and those things?

Yeah. So the grant is funded on a reimbursement basis. We take the proposal of the grantee, look at it. A lot of times it's security enhancements. Could be fences, it could be security guards, it could be cameras, could be a number of things. Sometimes it's capital improvements. It could even be IT. We look at that plan, rate that, and according, and look at also their risk assessment, and then we award those awards.

And then as they implement their plan, they send in their invoices. We reimburse them. What we're saying, I think, for a longer period of time in this particular grant, we're going to allow that reimbursement process to continue, especially also, because we're dealing with nonprofits who aren't the most savvy in terms of accepting grants, and new to the state process as well.

And once they receive notification, as Eric has mentioned, Deputy Director, we will be able to--if they have spent money already on target hardening and security enhancements, they can submit their reimbursements back from December 1st.

Thank you.

Being very flexible.

Thank you for that, and it's something that this Committee is interested in monitoring as it goes through, so please keep our Committee apprised of anything that continues to move forward for that safety. Assembly Member McCarty?

Yeah, thank you. Just maybe a follow-up. I'm familiar with this. I know that I worked, supported our new Budget Chair Gabriel last couple years on behalf of some of our nonprofits here, and the issue with cash on hand, to put it up front, is a real one for some of the smaller ones, maybe some of the ones in LA, the more well-known ones who came to us maybe had money in their bank to do that.

So walk us through how it works in a practical term. If you're an awardee, do you actually have to make the purchase and get a receipt? What happens if you don't have that up front?

Gina Buccieri-Harrington, Associate Director. What we are allowing is an advancement also of 25 percent of the award, so they can get an advancement if they would like to use that advancement to pay for any purchases. So once they are awarded, they can put in for an advancement of 25 percent.

Is that just for this program or is that traditional for a lot of our..?

It's traditional for a lot of our programs. The 25 percent. Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Lackey.

Yeah, I don't mean to be Captain Obvious here, but obviously the October 7th attack in Israel was a primary source of this increased demand. That's pretty significant, and I think that we talk about the budget cut climate. I would hope that we would see that this is not an area to go there when only ten percent of the demand is being met now. So I would hope that we would escape that.

And I would just remind those who are on Budget Committee, which I happen to be one of those people as well, when we submit our requests, that's not final at that point either, right? It ends up going all the way to the Governor's desk, and he's the one that makes it and his team make that final decision.

But I would hope that they would listen to the cries of the people that there's clearly a need for this because there's just a lot of emotion that's misplaced, and people show really poor judgment when their emotion gets driven in the wrong direction. And these people deserve protection. So I hope that we can afford that, at least to the modicum of investment that we're already granting. They can't afford a cut, and that's all I got.

Thank you for that, and thank you for your comments, and thank you for your testimony here in front of this Committee on Sub Six. We are interested in monitoring how those grants were awarded, the extension, and to McCarty's point, Assembly Member McCarty, the 25 percent areas that you could actually move forward. So keep us abreast of the programs as they continue to move forward and as we transition to Issue Number Seven, it's the same panel. So we'll continue, and we'll start with Eric Swanson.

Yes. The Federal Victims of Crime Act or VOCA, victim assistance formula grant program funds services to victims of crime, including rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, housing, victim witness center support, and child advocacy center programs. California's federal VOCA assistance grant funds have declined in recent years, from its peak of 397 million in federal year 2018 to 153 million in federal fiscal year 2023.

And it is our understanding that California's federal VOCA assistance grant allocation could be further reduced to between 90 to 120 million for the statewide programs if the federal reduction materializes. Cal OES worked with the VOCA Steering Committee, which largely consists of service providers and stakeholders, to develop a reduction plan for victims' programs in event the federal cut materializes. Again, we're available for any questions.

Thank you. Any other testimony? Department of Finance?

No comments.

LAO?

Thank you, Chair Ramos. We've been asked to provide you with kind of a summary of a 2015-16 report we had on improving the state's victim programs as some of our recommendations relate to ongoing efforts to consolidate the victim programs under one agency. So just before jumping into kind of a summary of our report, I just wanted to provide a little bit of context around the terminology between now and kind of what was in effect at the time of our report.

So the state does fund services to victims through numerous programs. Today, those are primarily administered by OES and the Victim Compensation Board or VCB. VCB was known as the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board until 2016, when the government claims function was transferred to DGS. So the transfer happened after our report was written. So we still refer to VCB by its prior name, but I think just for ease, I'm just going to refer to it as the Board today.

So our prior review of the state victim programs found that the state lacked a comprehensive strategy for assisting crime victims, primarily because the state lacked a lead agency that was responsible for coordinating the state's efforts to assist victims. Specifically, we had a few key findings as part of that report. First, victim programs lacked coordination. So, for example, at the time, staff from OES and the Board indicated that they generally did not collaborate at that time. Second, the state was missing opportunities for obtaining certain federal funds.

For example, the Board was not applying for federal matching funds for services provided by OES or paid for by OES. And then third, we had--that many state victim grant programs appeared duplicative and provided relatively small grant awards. And then fourth and finally, we found that the grant programs were narrowly targeted, which meant that a lot of the grant programs were restricted to a relatively small subset of potential applicants. So, in light of these findings, we made a few different key recommendations.

First, we recommended that the Legislature restructure the Board to better focus on victim programs. As part of this, we recommended approving the Governor's proposal at the time to shift the government claims function from the Board to DGS, which, as I mentioned earlier, was done in 2016. We also recommended changing the Board's membership to add expertise in victims issues. Second, we recommended shifting all of the major victim programs from OES to the Restructured Board.

And then third and finally, we recommended that the Restructured Board develop a comprehensive strategy. And we recommended that this strategy do a few things: first: assess the appropriate number, scope, and priority of the state's existing victim grant programs, second: consider ways to ensure that the state receives all eligible federal grants, and third: to establish a process for periodic evaluations of victim programs.

While we haven't conducted a comprehensive assessment on the status of our recommendations since issuing that report, we do know that OES and the Board have taken steps to address some of these recommendations. So, for example, OES and the Board have published a strategic plan for victim services, which is promising from both a collaboration perspective as well as taking steps to publish a comprehensive strategy. We are aware, however, that a key recommendation remains unimplemented, which is to shift all major victim programs from OES to the Board.

We do know that OES and VCB have taken steps to look into this transition, and as part of the 2019-20 budget package, the Governor and Legislature agreed in concept to consolidating the Victim Services Program, operated by the Board and OES into a new victim services department under the Government Operations Agency.

However, in order to allow additional time to work through the final details of that transition, the implementation of the new department was deferred to the 2021 budget when the Administration agreed to bring forward a final proposal. To date, that proposal has not been submitted yet. So we continue to think, again, as part of our report, that consolidating these victim services programs would be as important, and we do look forward to the final proposal when it is submitted. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that. Department of Finance, would you like to respond?

Sure. Just Tesha Kombak from the Department of Finance. Just wanted to provide an additional clarifying comment to state that the 2024-25 budget does not contain a proposal regarding consolidation.

Thank you. Any questions? Any comments from the dais?

I have a comment.

Mr. Lackey?

I think that's unfortunate. I think the LAO's recommendation is clearly justified, and I think it would be smart because I think OES has a full plate and certainly the demand that we asked for OES is pretty considerable. And I think that this particular circumstance, based on the past, they're having difficulty. And so why don't we make it easier for everybody and consolidate and do this restructuring? I think that that clearly is called for, and I hope that we would, as the legislative body, strongly consider that.

Thank you, Assembly Member Lackey. And restructuring, utilizing resources is something that's important for all in the state to look at. However, we do also need to have a plan and have that back to us so that we could evaluate that. So we would be looking through this Committee to find out where that plan is at and how soon it would be coming to this body. Thank you. Now, as we move on to Issue Number Eight.

Yes. The final issue is a requirement articulated in the last few budget cycles for Cal OES to develop an issue or report that outlines our operational visions or response gap or sort of a response gap analysis.

The intent of this report is to identify the types of risks Cal OES considers during planning and preparedness efforts, the framework utilized to identify the appropriate resource capabilities, existing programs that support the framework, goals and objectives for emergency response, how recently approved resources support the emergency response goals and objectives, and gaps that may exist with the current resources. We have utilized internal interviews and outsider stakeholder input to develop this report. The report is in the approval process and should be disseminated shortly. It was due just a few weeks ago, March 1st, but we should be getting it out soon.

Thank you so much for that testimony. Any others? Department of Finance?

No comments.

LAO?

Thank you, Chair Ramos. We're also prepared to provide kind of a summary of our 22-23 report, if that would be helpful. That kind of led to this ultimate conclusion. Is that okay?

That'll be great.

Sure. So again, Jared Sippel with the LAO. We have been asked to provide a brief overview of a recommendation that was made as part of the 22-23 budget process, where we recommended that the Legislature require the Administration to develop a report for enhancing the state's emergency response capacity. And so basically, what we were seeing at the time was that there was significant growth in OES's both budget as well as staffing levels. So OES's state operations budget had more than doubled from the 17-18 budget through the Governor's 22-23 budget.

Staffing levels had similarly increased from more than 60 percent over that same time period, and given the increases in both the number and the severity of emergency, as well as the likelihood that emergencies would continue to increase in the future, we did acknowledge that it was reasonable that the Governor was proposing to increase the state's emergency response capacity during that time. However, we also found that the Governor's proposals were difficult to assess for a couple of key reasons.

First, OES's short-term and long-term staffing needs were unclear, and OES lacked an overall staffing plan that outlined a strategy for addressing the identified staffing needs. Over the years, we had been seeing kind of similar types of staffing augmentation, such as disaster planning, logistics, administration, grants management. However, again, it was difficult to assess how all of these fit into the overall staffing needs of the Department. And second, we also found that the Governor's proposals were not tied to specific emergency response goals or objectives.

We believed that having such goals were important, that the Administration should have objectives that are aligned to each of those goals, and that the Administration should provide a list of potential activities and programs that could help meet those objectives. And so, however, without that information, it was difficult to determine if these specific proposals reflected the most effective and efficient approach to meeting the state's emergency response needs.

So that accordingly, we ended up recommending that the state require the Administration to develop this report on enhancing the state's emergency response capacity. We recommended that it include a few key elements: first: goals for emergency response capacity, such as the number and types of emergencies the state needs to be prepared to respond to simultaneously.

Second: an assessment of existing capacity, such as how the emergency response capacity is distributed throughout the state and how OES capacity fits in with the capabilities of other departments like CAL FIRE, as well as other local and federal emergency responders, third: an identification of gaps and weaknesses in the current capacity that prevent the state from meeting those goals, and then finally, an assessment of staffing needed to support these capacity goals.

And so ultimately, as was discussed, the final 22-23 Budget Act included a requirement for a report that contains many of these elements, as Mr. Swanson mentioned earlier, and we do look forward to receiving that report from the Department once it's ready. So thank you.

Thank you so much for that, and we do need to make sure we are looking at strategic plans and getting back so that we could vet the process a little bit further that utilize the resources that are there. Department of Finance, would you like to respond?

Sure. Tesha Kombak, Department of Finance. Just wanted to reiterate what the Department representative mentioned, that this report is forthcoming and should be available soon.

Thank you so much. Please work with this Committee to ensure that we know when that time is coming. Thank you so much. On OES, Cal OES, there's a federal fund gap, and this goes back to Issue Seven. On the different gap that's there, does OES have a plan to fill in those areas with that victim services?

Yeah. This was a difficult process. What we ended up doing is we actually have an existing VOCA Steering Committee, that Advisory Committee that provides recommendations to our Director on how to implement the programs. It involves nonprofit organizations. There's some members who are appointed, but it's basically the stakeholders, the people who are doing the work. So we ended up convening a very difficult meeting that my colleague here ended up running this summer, talking about if these cuts materialize, what sort of reductions are we looking at?

And together, the Committee, along with Cal OES, had came up with a series of reductions, and again, they're not pretty, but that's what that came up with, and that's what we plan to implement if the reduction takes place.

Thank you for that. Gina, would you like to elaborate a little bit more on that?

Yes. We have started implementing our request for proposals, reducing those programs by a dollar amount going forward, and then what we did was we started this a year ago, so we let our victim services organizations know that this was coming so it wasn't cut last minute. And we are going to be implementing in 2024, a 30 percent cut across the board, fair and equitable for all our victim services programs. Really until we know our federal amount, we are unsure what that is going to be yet.

We're just hearing rumblings. It could be up to 100 million dollars. We still don't know. We might not know till September, but we are starting to mitigate those cuts now to prepare. And if we're so fortunate to get additional money, then we would be able to either equalize the programs with whatever comes our way.

Yeah, and we should point out too that on our federal lists, always--our wish lists--we're always bringing this up to our federal colleagues as something we want to make sure that they understand that this--and there's a lot of states that know this, that this is a big deal.

Yes.

Thank you. Do we know an amount of what we believe the gap would be?

Right now, around 100 million.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. Any questions from the dais? Comments?

My only comment would be more a question on how would a 30 percent cut be fair or equitable? I mean, I know you use those terms, but I think you mean evenly.

Evenly. Absolutely. Evenly distributed, to be fair.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your time being here and all these tough issues here in Sub Six that we're going to be looking at, and certainly following up and getting some more of that information back. Thank you all for participating. As now, we move on to public comment. Public comment for each person will have up to one minute. Please state your name.

Hi. Thank you, Chair, Committee, and staff. Ryan Morimune with the California State Association of Counties, here to provide brief remarks in regards to Issue Number Seven, and so we appreciate the Committee and Cal OES highlighting the downward trend in the federal funding shortfall as it relates to the Victims of Crime Act or VOCA. The federal funding shortfall presents not only a historic low, but an extreme concern for victims and their ability to receive essential services for their healing and their recovery.

There is also a pending legislation aimed at addressing this issue, so we look forward to further discussions, but as it relates to your question, more broadly speaking, Chair, last year, according to the U.S. DOJ, the Crimes Victims Fund balance under VOCA was over 2.3 billion. Unfortunately, despite our continual federal advocacy on behalf of counties and other organizations, it's poised to fund VOCA at 1.35 billion. And so, as you can tell, again, a significant shortfall.

And then, so general comments as it relates to Issue Four, we broadly support ongoing, comprehensive efforts to prevent fentanyl from entering our borders and appreciate strategies focusing on prevention, education, as well as larger drug trafficking operations with coordination and support from our local law enforcement agencies. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Magnolia with Green Rhetoric, speaking on Issue Number Seven on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, the Children's Advocacy Centers of California, the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking, Legal Aid Association of California, Los Angeles LGBT Center, the Culturally Responsive Domestic Violence Network, the LGBTQ Center of Long Beach, and ValorUS, along with 200 state and local organizations. We're calling on to the Legislature to provide ongoing funding to stabilize the crime victim services and ensure that survivors have access to the life-saving supports that they need.

In California, VOCA dollars are the largest consistent funding source for vital services to victims of crime. Programs supporting survivors of domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, elder abuse, human trafficking, and more rely heavily on VOCA funding to keep their doors open.

As we all know, the federal appropriations bill passed last week, which will constitute roughly a 630 million dollars cut to the VOCA grants compared to FY 23 at the national level, and the cuts that Cal OES has already begun to implement and would need to continue rolling out as a result of this funding cut will force crime victim service providers to reduce their services to survivors, including fewer legal services, housing options, longer wait times for counseling services, and some programs may need to close their doors entirely.

Given this dire federal funding shortfall, it's essential that the state step in to provide funds to support crime victims as they reach out for safety, support, and healing. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth, and I would echo our support of the previous two speakers around the restoration of VOCA loss of funds because this is impacting a lot of our young people experiencing homelessness and would also raise to the Committee our request to increase the Youth Emergency Telephone Referral Network known as the California Youth Crisis Line.

We have not received an increase in funding since 2015-16 when we were allowed to using dollars from the state to roll out our chat-to-text hotline for our young people. We know they like to text and chat, and that's how we're going to meet our young people.

And so we're looking for some additional resources of 600,000 ongoing General Fund so we can have more mental health counselors on our line, support our young people, and also provide the oversight and counseling so that our volunteers--we have over 100--can actually get their hours towards their licensure and clinical licensure, as well as just general stuff so we can improve our advertising and respectfully request these additional dollars. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Hi. I had a question. If we're speaking to multiple issues, can we have a minute per issue or do we just need to pick one?

I'm being very generous.

Okay. Thank you. So, for the issue of the fentanyl hearing--my name is Haley Little. I'm representing SURJ Bay Area, which is Showing Up for Racial Justice, and CURB, Californians United for A Responsible Budget. I'm extremely disappointed to see--and I'm in here in opposition of the proposed increase in funding to the Fentanyl Enforcement Program. While I can understand the figures and outcomes presented today appear to be impressive and an indicator of success, these figures do not actually lead to a direct increase in public safety.

What this indicates to me is that our state is not absorbing the lessons of past failures here in America. The failed War on Drugs has showed us that we cannot punish and criminalize our way out of America's substance use issues. We can spend all the money we want on seizing drugs and incarcerating people, but people who want to use drugs will continue to do so, and new suppliers will continue to arise.

Then not only have we wasted our precious funds on seizing drugs that were eventually replaced, but we have now the additional cost of 100,000 dollars per person per year of the people we are now incarcerating. Instead of focusing our precious California funds in such an intense deficit period on punishment and criminalization, I'm hoping that we can prioritize our funds for services that will truly interrupt the cycles of addiction in our communities.

This looks like supporting mental health care, substance use services, housing, workforce development, community-based support services. Please consider using this funding in alternative ways that are more responsible and positively impactful for all Californians. And then in terms of VOCA funding, I oppose the delay of cash assistance to survivors of harm, and I urge the Legislator to fill the 200 million dollar gap that will result from VOCA funding reduction.

The proposed decrease in funding for survivors of harm poses a significant threat to the well-being of our communities. When individuals who have been harmed do not receive the support they need, it not only perpetuates cycles of trauma, but also increases the likelihood of further harm occurring within our California communities. Investing in services for survivors of harm is not just about individual people, it's about safeguarding the entire community from the ripple effects of unresolved trauma.

Research has shown consistently that individuals who do not receive adequate support after experiencing harm are at higher risk of engaging in harmful behavior themselves. By neglecting funding for victim services, we are essentially setting the stage for cycles of harm and recidivism to continue. If the Legislature is genuinely committed to keeping our community safe and reducing prison populations and spending, cutting the funding to essential services is counterproductive and shortsighted. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello. My name is Alicia. I represent Californians United for A Responsible Budget. I reject increased funding to law enforcement to criminalize Californians for the fentanyl crisis. To seriously address the fentanyl overdose crisis, we need to prioritize a health approach and increase access and funding to evidence-based approaches.

California must uphold and expand existing policies, like the Values Act, that allow immigrant Californians to participate in our communities and access care and support, such as going to the hospital and appearing for court hearings without fear of discrimination based on the color of their skin or being subjected to traumatic ICE detention or deportation.

To the Chairman's point, Native American residents in California had the highest rate of opiate overdose death compared to any other racial group from 2017 to 2022, according to the most recent data available from the California Department of Public Health. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, in jails, Native people had more than double the incarceration rate of White people, and in prisons, that disparity was even greater. This feels like the 80s crack cocaine epidemic that targeted the Black community. Same story, different drug, different underserved community, but same story. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. Good to be here with you all. My name is Anthony Di Martino. I'm the Government Affairs Director for Californians for Safety and Justice and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice. We have over 50,000 organized crime survivors here in the State of California, and we are led by several crime survivors in our organization. I'm here to speak directly about the Flexible Cash Assistance Program.

In 2022, we had a banner year for victims and public safety priorities where we were awarded 50 million dollars for flexible cash assistance. This would have been a first in the nation pilot program to get money out the door quicker to victims. This year, the Governor has proposed to delay that, and we are asking the Legislature to work with us to oppose that and/or find a solution to amend that to get some money out the door. The grant has already been written.

The RFP is ready to go out. We are working with organizations to make sure folks are aware of this. So we look forward to working with you all on finding a solution to get money out the door for victims, and thank you, Assembly Member Lackey, specifically for your comments for this. I also align my remarks with the other speakers on finding a solution for VOCA. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello, Chair Ramos and Committee Members. Thank you so much for the discussion today and thank you for previous commenters on the funding that we is so desperately needed. Rachel Mueller, on behalf of Valor. Valor is a California-based national anti-sexual violence organization and California sexual assault coalition. Valor represents the 84 Rape Crisis Center programs across the state who serve survivors of sexual violence and support them through their unique healing and recovery journeys.

In FY 21-22, California Rape Crisis Center served over 46,000 survivors of sexual violence. Federal funding to crime victim services is at risk of being dramatically cut and will impact the ability to provide assistance to sexual assault and other crime survivors. Should funding for crime victim services not be backfilled by the state, survivors' access to essential services will start to disappear.

Rape Crisis Centers will have to increase wait times to access counseling services, see their operating budgets cut in half, or worse, close their doors to communities who desperately need their support. Survivors of sexual violence deserve access to healing centers even through tough budget years. We respectfully urge the Members of this Committee and in the Legislature to include 200 million in ongoing funding in this year's budget to support the gap in federal crime victim services funding. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments. Any other public comment? Seeing none. This Committee is adjourned.

Eventually, it's going to be there.