Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Human Services

This committee is for the people and therefore must be open to the words of the people, whether someone agrees with them or not, especially for those who are the most underrepresented, the most unable to speak up for themselves. And as long I am in this role, any conduct seeking to prevent or limit that will not be tolerated, whether it's in this room or in the hallways.

I want to restate that the overall vision of budget Subcommitee two is to turn our survival programs into thriving programs and ensure that our systems are meeting the current needs of our population. Surviving is not enough. However, the most important priority of this committee is to ensure that the budget promotes the stability of our population.

The poverty, hunger, and immigration programs we will discuss today make up the very fabric of our social safety net here in our state, and we still have a long way to go to eliminate hunger and poverty for everyone living in California. We must strengthen these programs, not weaken them. So let us be clear. This is about priorities, and there is no greater evidence of our priorities than our budget. Poverty and hunger is a priority decision.

Therefore, as long as we have childhood poverty, hunger and homelessness in our state, it is because we have decided that it is not our top priority. While this may not be a season of expansion, it is an opportunity for reform and to make our systems and programs more efficient. This committee will not dampen its ambitions in terms of these goals. Not all of these goals require more money. It may require shifts of our resources or shifts of systems.

In order for money that we do have to be more efficiently used. Regardless of the budget situation we find ourselves in, the status quo cannot and will not be acceptable. I look forward to talking about some of the most vital portions of our social safety net this evening and into the night. So I hope everyone ate and is well hydrated. This will be a long night.

But also I must also let everyone know that due to a lot of budget talks and things like that, I will be recessing at 3:30 and will probably resume around 5:00 p.m. And with that, I also want to make sure everyone also knows that we will be moving public comment up to after agenda item seven to ensure that everyone who took their flights and who are waiting to get back home and all that good stuff will be able to be taken care of.

And then also, it's important to know that the first people who will be allowed to take public comment. You don't have to take the baby out if you don't want to. This is her hearing, too. All right. But also want to make sure people know that the people first that will be asked to do public comment will be family and clients will be the first up so that they can get their comments on the way and then be able to head home as well.

Again, each person will be provided public comment, two minutes each to make sure remarks are taken care of as well, and a few other notes. I also ask for everyone to please be respectful of all views again that are shared today. And then also for those who are panelists, we ask that you please keep your remarks to or at or under five minutes. And at five minutes, there will be an audible beep from the dais so that you know to wrap it up.

And so we will introduce, bring up our first panel at this time. Issue number one, poverty and hunger in California today. We ask that you please introduce yourself before you speak, and let's try to go in the order listed in the agenda, and you may begin when you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. My name is Monica Socelo, and I'm a senior policy fellow at the California Budget and Policy Center, a nonpartisan research and analysis nonprofit. Today I'm presenting information on recent trends in poverty and child hunger in California and the lessons that they hold for policymakers. What we learned from the pandemic and the great recession before that is that poverty is a policy choice.

When policymakers cut critical safety net supports, they push families and children into or deeper into poverty, with often devastating consequences for their future. That's why it's so vital to protect the progress California has made in recent years, strengthening CalWORKs and other safety net programs to build toward a state where no child lives in deep poverty. In the last year, California witnessed a concerning increase in its poverty rate, outpacing every other state in the country.

Specifically, one in every seven Californians lack the resources to put food on the table, pay the rent, and meet their basic needs. The hard truth is poverty is up, particularly among children and black and Latinx Californians. Millions of people are struggling to afford everyday expenses, and rising shares of Californians are facing food insecurity.

This is a huge step backward from just a few years ago, when poverty fell to historic lows and long standing racial inequities in poverty finally narrowed, thanks in part to the choices this body made. As California families face financial strain, they are often forced to make difficult choices, sacrificing necessities like food in order to meet other pressing needs. Consequently, one in six children across our state are not sure where their next meal will come from.

This not only jeopardizes their health and well being, but also hinders their ability to learn in school, which we know has compounding effects on their future. Moreover, the issue of homelessness is closely intertwined with high levels of poverty. Families living in poverty are at heightened risk of becoming homeless due to the high cost of housing, lack of access to supportive services, and barriers to economic opportunities.

As a result, an increasing number of children in California are finding themselves without stable housing, which is tied to severe negative outcomes like chronic health conditions, elevated substance use disorder, physical and sexual victimization, as well as chronic homelessness. In addition to the effect on food and housing insecurity, poverty is also tied to increased child welfare involvement and family separation. Research shows that improving family financial stability leads to a reduced risk of both neglect and involvement with child welfare agencies.

It's crucial to recognize the importance of safety net programs in mitigating the impacts of poverty on our communities by helping families meet their basic needs and regain stability. As you are aware, California faced a massive state budget shortfall between 2008 and 2010 as the recession deepened and state revenues plummeted. In response, state policymakers reached budget agreements that included more than $30 billion in state spending reductions, including deep cuts to CalWORKs and other safety net programs.

As a result of these cuts, CalWORKs grant levels fell well below the federal poverty line and to a historic Low in 2013. Given these changes, it's no surprise that deep poverty disproportionately impacted young children during and after the great recession. These cuts not only hurt the children who lose essential supports, but also hurt our economy in the long run.

Research shows that children raised in poverty are more likely to drop out of high school and less likely to get a college degree, as well as earn substantially less as adults than their peers raised with higher incomes. Reducing support for low income children at a time of economic distress and rising poverty could limit California's future significantly.

However, we know that policymakers have the tools to ensure this doesn't happen today because what we saw so clearly from the dramatic drop and then rise in poverty following pandemic era relief is that poverty is a policy choice. It was state and federal leaders' choice to make significant investments in families that slashed poverty during the peak of the pandemic, and it was Congress's choice to end those successful investments and push millions back into poverty.

In conclusion, the rising trend of poverty, child poverty, and its associated challenges of hunger and homelessness are complex issues that demand our unwavering attention and collective action. The recent increases are a reflection of policy choices, and different choices can reverse these trends.

California's budget is a statement of our values and priorities and should reflect a commitment to providing opportunities for everyone in our state to share in California's wealth, because all Californians deserve to have the resources to thrive, no matter their race, age, gender or zip code. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair. Kim Johnson, California Department of Social Services as was referenced, poverty is not just changing for California. It is the highest and the biggest increase in 50 years across the country in the United States. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the poverty rate rose from 11.7% in the fall of 2021 to 13.2% in the first quarter of 2023.

Using the California poverty measure, which accounts for housing costs and safety net benefits, the poverty rate rose despite that most families are working those that are experiencing poverty. Child poverty jumped from 9% in the fall of 2021 to 13.8% in early 2023. Additionally, according to the Northwestern Institute for Policy Research and based on the Census Bureau's Household poll survey, approximately one in five Californians are food insecure.

Much of the change, as you just heard, can be attributed to the ending of the federal child tax credit and additional pandemic supports, which again, we appreciate. Those were choices that we made together to be intentional to support families during the pandemic. California the good news a bit California continues to have a robust array of safety net programs to support individuals and families experiencing poverty, and they work.

As your agenda points out on page 13, we expect to support over 348,000 families experiencing poverty in our CalWORKs program, and again, would note that the overwhelming majority of the CalWORKs participants are women of color. That's for current year, and we also expect to serve over 354,000 families in CalWORKs in budget year, and that's an increase of 1.6% in CalFresh. We expect to support over 3,054,000 households with CalFresh in the current year and 3,085,000 in budget year for an increase of 1%.

This equates to just over 5 million Californians, of which 36% are children and 16% are older adults benefiting from critical food supports. According to the Public Policy Institute in early 2023, about 3.2 million more Californians would have been in poverty without the safety net programs. Most safety net programs prioritize children, and in early 2023, these programs kept 14.9%, or 1.3 million children, out of poverty, in California. Calfresh alone kept 1.1 million Californians out of poverty as of October 1 of 2021.

We've also, of course, increased our CalWORKS maximum aid payments as well, and CalWORKS alone lifts roughly 95,000 California children out of poverty. But that understates the impact, as CalWORKS also provides families with categorical eligibility for Calfresh and Medi-Cal. The Governor and Legislature have taken many actions to further supports to Californians who need them most and to integrate these services.

Just some examples that are broad in our conversation about poverty and food would include universal school meals, where California was the first state in the nation to offer universal school meals to all children regardless of income. Expanded tax credits, whether that be the California Earned Income Tax Credit, the young child tax credit, or our newly offering foster youth tax credit. Significantly increasing the affordability of childcare by offering additional access to childcare subsidies as well as reducing family fees.

Changes in our CalWORKS program, like increasing our grant levels, child support pass through, increasing earned income disregards and more and our soon to launch summer EBT, our electronic benefits transfer program that will provide food benefits to eligible school age children during the summer months when they may not have access to school meals. Those are just some examples the Committee also asked related to take-up rate of our CalWORKs and cow fresh programs.

We are certainly, as our strategy continues, trying to reach all eligible families and individuals for programs, and the LAO has previously published a report that indicates that the CalWORKs take up rate amongst families is about 60% in 2019, with variations across different geographic regions, racial groups and other demographics. The Department of Social Services expects to issue an analysis of the CalWORKs take up rate in April, in just one month. This analysis will include two new measures of CalWORKs take up.

Both estimate takeup across different demographic characteristics such as race and ethnicity, preferred language, age, and geography. The first takeup measure is based on the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. Adapted from the Lao methodology. This approach uses data collected by the census every year on a representative sample of Californians to estimate the number of households and individuals that are likely eligible for CalWORKs. The second take up measure uses administrative data to estimate the number of CalFresh and Medi Cal recipients who are eligible in participating in CalWORKs.

The two measures are intended to be complementary to each other and provide actionable data to inform efforts to increase access and take up. And of course, we are focused on those efforts. We have recently partnered with the Office of Data and Innovation and worked with current and former CalWORKs participants, county health and human service agencies, community based organizations and other interested parties to identify ways we can support and increase uptake.

Reducing administrative burden was one of the highest things and feedback that we got to help that enrollment and both for application and for retaining and staying on the program, and also just a request for communication to be clear as possible and timely and streamlined. So as a result, the Department is moving forward with recommendations to redesign the issued denial letters so applicants understand any reasons for potential denial and what steps they can take to reapply.

We are looking at the welfare workflow process and we're finalizing a contract to support this deliverable. We've also partnered with the rescue agency to launch a statewide promotional media campaign. This is again an investment that we've made with the Legislature for the first time to conduct outreach for CalWORKs, and I invite everyone to visit calworks.org to see some of those materials where it's increased that program participation by raising awareness of the program and reducing the stigmas attached to participating in it.

And that information is available currently in English and Spanish. We also, in CalFresh, just very quickly in terms of uptake, know that we have something called the program REACH index is how it's measured for CalFresh. Between 2019 and 2021, the statewide program reach index increased 11.3 percentage points from 70.4% to 81.7%, respectively, but again still work to do to reach all those eligible populations.

We have instituted strategies like the Elderly Simplified Application Project demonstration, which streamlines CalFresh enrollment among households composed solely of older adults and those with disabilities with no earned income. We've employed focused strategies on specific populations that we know are not reaching as high as our overall statewide threshold.

So that's families with income under 200% at the federal poverty level, families with children under the age of 18 with a special focus on children under the age of five, older adults age 60 and above, individuals and families with language access barriers, college students, veterans and their families. We've also created streamlined processes for dual enrollment with CalFresh and Medi-Cal have expanded language access efforts. And of course, we are expanding our California food assistance program, our CFAP coming soon.

In summary, as previously mentioned, poverty rates remain lower than pre pandemic levels. Working households, though, find it difficult to make ends meet without access to social safety net supports like CalWORKs and CalFresh. The pandemic saw increased program utilization through the takeup of newly eligible households impacted by illness, job loss or income reduction, and working households recovering from the pandemic's effects continue to remain eligible for the CDSS programs.

We will continue our outreach efforts and look forward to updating the Committee on our progress on meeting additional targets.

Thank you very much. Department of Finance.

Emily Marshall Department of Finance nothing further to add, but happy to answer any questions.

Good afternoon, Sonia Schrager Russo with the Legislative Analyst Office thus far, we've heard about poverty and hunger in California and the DSS programs designed to address these issues. Our office has been asked to turn the conversation to the Governor's Budget and provide a high level overview of the administration's proposals for these programs. We will have an opportunity to speak to each proposal in detail throughout the hearing today.

Legislative Analyst Office.

Turning first to Calfresh and food related programs the Governor's Budget has no major new proposals in this area, and it does estimate that CalFresh and CFAT funding will grow about 1% alongside similar increases in caseload. Turning next to CalWORKs, the Governor's Budget estimates that overall CalWORKs funding will remain relatively flat year over year from 2324 to 2425 at about $7 billion total funds annually.

This is largely due to increased caseload estimates at about 5% of increasing offset by proposed ongoing reductions in the Governor's Budget. Our office does independently forecast caseload for both CalWORKS and CalFresh, and while our estimates have deviated from the administrations in the past, both estimates do appear similar to the administration's at this time, and therefore we have reason to believe the administration's caseload estimates are reasonable. We will revisit these estimates in May when additional information is available.

Turning next to the governor's proposed reductions in CalWORKs, as mentioned, these are ongoing reductions, which total about $293,000,000. They focus on county administrative funding, subsidized employment, family stabilization services, and intensive case management. With the exception of the proposed reductions to intensive case management, all of these reductions would begin in 2324 if they were adopted. The reductions to subsidize employment and family stabilization would eliminate all funding for both of these programs on an ongoing basis.

The Administration has also signaled the state's intent to apply for an upcoming federal performance outcomes pilot, which we'll discuss in detail in a later panel, and has also projected a 0.8% grant increase, which would be triggered and funded by local revenue growth specifically for CalWORKs grant increases. Our office estimates that the cost of this grant increase would be about $27 million in 2425 and about $37 million annually thereafter.

The Administration has indicated it plans to reevaluate this projected increase in grants in May when additional revenue information is available, so the cost of this increase is not yet included in the Governor's Budget. Lastly, on the CalWORKs front, the Administration also proposes withdrawing the full balance of the safety net Reserve, which totals $900 million.

This full withdrawal appears inconsistent with the administration's overall proposed approach to using reserves in this budget, since the Administration also proposes withdrawing only half of the budget stabilization account's constitutional balance, as is allowed during a budget emergency and the entire discretionary balance of the BSA. Lastly, our office would like to provide a few overarching comments that may be helpful for the Legislature as it considers the Governor's Budget proposals. We do recognize that the Legislature faces difficult budget decisions this year and likely more into the future.

With that in mind, the Administration has not yet offered justification on why these specific CalWORKs elements are proposed for reduction. It is only indicated that they're part of an overall package of solutions to address the deficit. There are few program areas across the budget where the Governor has proposed ongoing programmatic cuts to establish programs, which makes the proposed ongoing CalWORKs reductions alongside similar reductions in child welfare programs fairly unique in this way.

However, it is important to note that given the budget problem, ongoing programmatic reductions will be necessary in this budget and any proposed budget solutions that the Legislature chooses to reject will need to be solved for elsewhere in the budget.

Thank you very much. The reason why we starting off with this panel is, number one.

There's a lot of issues that are being discussed in the media and the public, but the data is glaring in terms of just overall poverty. And we have got to understand that poverty has ripple effects and poverty affects multiple generations. And so if we don't start honing in on poverty as a whole and find solutions to tamp back down poverty, not by California's own doing, we have too much instability on the federal level that is causing us to have to react.

But it is of my opinion that we cannot just accept it as a failure on the Federal Government. But California has got to find a way to step up to tamp back down on poverty. We have got to do this or we're going to be here year after year trying to continue to put more money in these other programs right to deal with the issues that we're facing.

Ms. Saucedo, can you talk a little bit or even reiterate some of those ripple effects that poverty causes, but not only that. What are your thoughts in regards to, as I dug through some of the research in terms of the cost of poverty, right. I believe that poverty. I thought I saw a report on poverty costing just the entire nation over $1.0 trillion in terms of poverty, meaning poverty has a cost too, right? And poverty affects our budget too.

So can you talk a little bit about those ripple effects and the cost of poverty on our entire state as well?

Yes, absolutely. And thank you for those comments. You make very good points. That's right. As I mentioned before, poverty can have impacts on children's health, on their stability, housing stability, on things like child welfare involvement. All of these things together destabilize a family and can have compounding effects for many generations to come. Additionally, the effects as adults that poverty has is also really impactful for our economy as a whole.

As I mentioned, the research shows that children that grow up in poverty are less likely to obtain things like a college degree as well as earn less than their peers. What this means is that they are more likely to be in poverty as adults and just create this generational cycle that can. We will then find more people in these programs later on. So it's important to invest from the get go as children.

Thank you very much. Does anyone else want to add to that? If not, I want to thank this panel. Thank you so much for being here and talking about this important issue. Next, we'll bring up issue number two, impacts of guaranteed income and relationship with housing homeless Californians with a review of our guaranteed income pilot program. Again, we ask everyone to keep their comments to five minutes or less. You got the timer? Okay, girl.

And please introduce yourself and you may begin when you're ready in terms of the order of the agenda.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon again. Chair Kim Johnson, California Department of Social Services glad to share the latest on the guaranteed income pilot program authorizing $35 million in California by the Governor and Legislature as part of the '21-'22 state budget, providing unconditional recurring cash payments intended to disrupt poverty, advance equity, and support the basic needs of participants. This effort offers California an important opportunity to learn more about how guaranteed income can work as a supplement to the existing safety net benefits.

Seven pilots were selected to serve pregnant individuals and foster youth exiting extended foster care. Six of those seven pilots have launched, with the remaining site expected to launch this summer. An anticipated 1945 participants will receive guaranteed income. The payments will range from $600 to one, $200 per month for 12 to 18 months. Pilots boast a diverse list of community partners, including county human service departments, tribal organizations, probation, and more.

And per statute, all grantees must provide matching funds, no less than 50% of the amount awarded by the department. All pilot sites are participating in the statewide impact and implementation evaluations, with five of the seven participating in a randomized controlled trial. The evaluation will contribute to evidence and best practices for local and national policy development around income support programs.

Research will examine whether guaranteed income impacts health and well being outcomes of participants and their children, if applicable, including housing and food security participation in other public safety net programs, labor market participation, and educational attainment. The Department has also secured waivers to help ensure that the income received through these pilots does not impact the eligibility or support for those participating. Applicants are asked about the benefits to which they are currently connected are encouraged to participate in benefits counseling.

To make the decision about enrollment into the pilot, the Committee asked what lessons from guaranteed income programs can be projected for our larger safety net programs such as CalWORKs? And while guaranteed income and CalWORKs are both cash assistance program, the significant difference is in the design preventing any direct translation of impacts to guaranteed income to the impacts of CalWORKs.

CalWORKs offers a much broader range of support or services that are unavailable to guaranteed income recipients, but again, we want to learn from those that are participating in both at the same time. Guaranteed income programs may, however, generate insight into whether reducing compliance costs leads to greater program access, the impact of additional cash assistance in the shorter term and over the long term in terms of greater economic mobility and stability for participants.

I know that the other panelists will focus more on the relationship between guaranteed income and homelessness, but I would just offer the UCSF Benioff Centers California statewide study of people experiencing homeless, which indicated that lost income is the most commonly cited reason for why people experience homelessness and self reported data. Of the 3200 questionnaires administered to adults experiencing homelessness between October 2021 and November of 2022, 47% cited economic reasons, with the most frequent reason being loss or reduced income.

Income prevents and abates homelessness, improves housing security, improves other outcomes like healthcare access and nutrition, based on what we know from the research, and while guaranteed income likely could make a big difference for many families at risk or experiencing homelessness, those with higher, more complex needs or in highly competitive housing markets may also have that cash assistance paired with the supports to obtain and sustain housing. And with that, I'm here to answer any questions.

Great. Good afternoon. My name is Ben Henwood. I'm a Professor at the USC Suzanne Dowark-Peck School of Social Work, where I direct our Center for Homelessness, Housing and Health Equity Research I also serve as the co Director for the Homeless Policy Research Institute at the USC Sole Price School of Public Policy. Much of my research is focused on how to move people quickly off the streets and into permanent supportive housing using a housing first approach, especially with our quickly aging older adult homeless population.

I also lead the team that produces the estimates for the annual LA County homeless count. I was asked to come here today because one of the projects that we're conducting is a randomized control trial in which we are providing people who meet the federal definition of homelessness, basic income in the amount of $750 a month for one year. The project is being done in collaboration with a nonprofit organization known as Miracle Messages.

Essentially, for this study, miracle messages conducted outreach in Los Angeles in the Bay Area between May of 2022 and July of 2023 to recruit people experiencing homelessness into their Miracle Friends program. This is a program in which they match unhoused individuals with housed volunteers who serve as a phone buddy, essentially to help ease the loneliness and isolation that accompany homelessness.

When we signed people up for the study, we told them that the goal was to evaluate the Miracle Friends program and that they would be randomized to either receive a miracle friend, the Phone Buddy program, or be on a waitlist. What we did not tell them was that they may also be randomly selected to receive guaranteed income totaling $9,000 over the course of a year, with no strings attached.

Since the study began, a total of 103 individuals were randomly selected to receive a cash transfer of $750 a month for one year. While the study is still ongoing, I'd like to report on what we've learned thus far. In December of 2023, we released an interim report that you all should have access to that was based on about two thirds of our sample receiving at least six monthly payments.

While we didn't report on exits from homelessness altogether, we found that there was a 60% reduction in unsheltered homelessness among people who received money, compared to only an 18% reduction in unsheltered homelessness among those on the waitlist. So 60% versus 18%. Today, I can report on exits from homelessness altogether among our entire sample that have now received at least six monthly payments.

Our initial results are that 29% of people who receive that money exited homelessness altogether, and this is about double the rate at which the people on the waitlist exited homelessness. While our study is ongoing and the results have not been scientifically peer reviewed, our initial findings are consistent with other guaranteed income studies and suggests that guaranteed basic income can help address the enormous unsheltered homelessness problem in the State of California.

Our state has the highest rates of unsheltered homelessness and accounts for approximately half of all unsheltered individuals in the United States. Again, research suggests that you all, as elected officials, have a viable and effective policy option and guaranteed basic income that can be used to address the unsheltered homelessness crisis.

It is also worth noting that the recent UCSF statewide survey that was previously mentioned found that 70% of those surveyed thought that if they had an additional $300 to $500 a month, their homelessness could have been avoided or delayed. This suggests that a guaranteed income program like the one we are studying can be used effectively as a homelessness prevention program. This is supported by a recent study done in Santa Clara County by our colleagues at the University of Notre Dame.

As you can tell by my testimony, I think the evidence supports the use of basic income to address and prevent homelessness. I would also note that the research has shown that when the public is presented with a result of studies such as the one I talked about today, they are largely supportive of such policies. One of the biggest concerns, and the questions that I get most frequently, is whether people who receive basic income spent their money on drugs. The short answer is no.

People in our studies spent their money on food, on supporting their kids or their parents or their friends who are also in need, on buying a bike so that they could earn more money delivering food, and on paying down credit card debt that was making them feel as if they had no future. In conclusion, basic income appears to work because the people who receive it essentially spent their money better, more effectively than you or I could have done for them.

With that, I'll conclude my testimony by thanking you for having me here, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Hi, Carrie Miller with Los Angeles County. We are running one of the largest and longest guaranteed income programs in the country. We currently have 1000 people receiving $1,000 a month for three years, and we are in the process of expanding that up to 2100 people this summer. One of the things that we've noticed so far, as others have mentioned, is that people spend their money the right way.

Our research shows that 97% of all funds spent are spent on basic needs, housing, transportation, food services, educational expenses. We know anecdotally that a number of our participants have also started businesses. They've gone back to school. They're earning credentials. They're doing things that help create more economic mobility for themselves. We have one mother, for instance, named Carmen. She's a mother of four, she used her stipends to actually open a storefront in her community and now is a proud business owner.

And we have dozens of stories just like that of people who've opened up their own businesses and are doing for themselves, as you've heard, as the research is still being collected. And so it's emerging at this point, what we have seen is that the research is showing and supporting that people are increasing their health. They're reducing issues with mental health, particularly around anxiety, depression, levels of stress.

They are creating more economic stability for themselves, and they're in a position where they can start taking care of and addressing emergencies as they happen. Information that came out of a study in St. Paul, Minnesota, actually showed that folks who were in their guaranteed income program were more likely to have full time employment by the end of the program and at a six month interval afterwards. So we know that this program really is supporting people in terms of their economic mobility.

Some lessons learned so far that we found in our program is that there is a considerable gap in terms of what people need to meet their basic needs. The majority of our participants, 90% of them, are already on public assistance, and they need the extra money to actually be able to afford those basic needs. The majority of our participants also came into this program already working. And what we found is that the average income for these participants is $14,000 a year.

So what's happening is that this program is allowing them to cover those basic needs, which significantly reduces their stress levels. And once that stress level is reduced, they are actually able to focus on what do they need to do to achieve their goals better, their situation, create motivation to create economic mobility, whether that's getting a job, going back to school, opening a business, or whatever. We also have found that people are using the money in the right way.

They're doing what they need to do and covering their basic needs and moving themselves forward. And so one of the things that we believe that is coming out of this, as Director Johnson mentioned, is that we don't need to focus so much on a high level of control in terms of rules and imposing these types of restrictions on people.

The third thing that we're really seeing is that the cash serves as a multiplier within communities, and particularly low income communities, because economists show that for every dollar spent in these communities, the local economy benefits up to 50% on a dollar. So we are helping not only the families and the participants in this program, but we're also helping facilitate greater local economies within these communities.

And with that we know that these programs are showing real promise not only just in disrupting poverty, multi generational poverty, but also reinforcing the very resiliency and natural skills and abilities that people have in order to improve their situations.

Thank you very much. Department of Finance?

Emily Marshall, Department of Finance, nothing further to add.

Thank you. LAO?

Sonia Schrager Russo with the Legislative Analyst Office. Our office plans to continue monitoring the pilot implementation and the associated outcomes for any key takeaways or issues to raise for the Legislature. Regarding the proposed trailer bill language on the guaranteed income pilot, we have reviewed the language and have no issues to raise at this time.

Thank you very much. I've been really intrigued about guaranteed income programs. As soon as any bit of research comes out, I'm all over that baby. I think it was maybe 11:00, 12:00, or 1:00 in the morning where I began to read the article about the, Dr. Henwood, your preliminary findings as well. And I said, zero, I got to get him up here. I got to find you out, find him, track him down.

There's no doubt that there's some great benefits that currently, right now, the preponderance of the research is showing. But the key question is now, if it works so well, how do we see this being a part of California's safety net infrastructure? How do we tie this in, in a coherent way so that the whole system makes sense? Any thoughts about that from anyone?

I'm glad to start. Chair, thank you for the question. A couple of things I would say is that what we do know in terms of our safety net services is that the entirety of the array makes a tremendous difference if you're eligible for more things than you're participating in that other additional support for CalFresh or food assistance or housing. Housing support. That's the entirety of the array. And being able to get the Earned Income Tax Credit, for example. Right.

So I think what we are trying to learn in this experience, too, is kind of in terms of cash supports. So that's CalWORKs. We have that Earned Income Tax Credit would be another in terms of cash supports, what are the thresholds, if you will, that really do turn the curve and make a difference in being able to provide both the stability in the short term but also looking longer term outcomes.

And I think, again, we have continued to apply those learnings in our CalWORKs program, and we have changed asset limits over time in our earned income disregards. And we've thought about how the additional support for having the car, I think the Doctor here mentioned having a bike to get to other places. Right. Transportation, how that factors in.

So I think, again, we're very interested at the department with the pilots to learn from the cash assistance in conjunction and integrated with the social safety net what that difference yields in terms of outcomes for those participating over time.

Now, the kicker is, how in the world do we turn it into a more permanent and stable program. Right? And finding that additional source of revenue to be able to, because it does no good either if it's not consistent and predictable. Right? So that it has that long term impact so that they can leverage that. Actually, before I came to the Legislature, and as I get older, I start telling stories more and more.

But when I was a young boy, I turned 30, and I said, I have one more big risk in me to start my own nonprofit, which was my dream. And I lived off of the social safety net and what savings I had for two years to be able to create my nonprofit and worked for myself for 11 years before I got sworn in here. Right.

So we know that if you have the right stability and some predictability, you can begin to plan your way up, as long as you're not in a State of crisis. Right? Anyone else have thoughts about how this could be integrated into California system in a more permanent way?

If I could just add that, speaking about the general relief in La County right now? Well, in 1987, I believe the amount was $221 that people received. I think it's still $221 today. There was actually a settlement in 1987 that it was supposed to be inflation adjusted. That settlement was not honored, but if it had been, the amount would have been approximately the same amount that we are giving out, ah, in our study right now. And so I think that there are existing mechanisms.

And what's that number again, you're doing?

We're doing $750 a month, I believe the inflation adjusted number, that settlement would have brought it general relief today to approximately $780 a month.

Okay.

I think that another way to think about this, and one of the things that we're interested in exploring is in terms of thinking about this on a large scale, with making sure we have the funding to support it, is looking at the way we operate, our current benefits, and our current social safety network programs to see if the lessons that we're learning from guaranteed income can be applied to those.

Because if those could model better what a guaranteed income program is looking like in terms of the elements that make it work, then we would have more funding to be able to support what that looks like going forward on a sustainable way.

Which may require waivers and all that good. I'm sure the Federal Government just knows. They probably have a California office of waivers by now, as many waivers we ask for.

Maximizing our flexibilities.

Right? But I guess I've also been intrigued with the concept of monthly basic income versus a lump sum. What do you think is the way California should go? I've read the Kenyan report, by the way. Understanding it was so intriguing. It was just the nerd in me just got all excited. Any thoughts about that?

I think that's one of the things that we're learning. If you look at the 100-plus guaranteed income programs across the country, there's different models and variations on what that looks like. Whether it's a monthly income, some are looking at biannual, some are looking at annual, and I think there's emerging research that will help support that. I think some of the more recent research is showing that in some cases, having a larger upfront sum is making more of a difference than staggering over a monthly income.

But I think that's what's emerging from the research and something we'll be learning shortly.

Okay, any other ideas?

I'll just add that we secured there was no government funding in our randomized control trial, so this was just private philanthropy. We have secured more money and are planning to actually give people the option of either receiving a lump sum upfront or monthly payments. And we'll also be providing people with the lump sum. So we'll try all three versions. We hope to do that at the end of this year using our existing study.

In my mind, unless I'm wrong, and please tell me I'm wrong, a basic income seems to be a no-brainer now. There is no question whether it works or not. And again, if I'm wrong, please tell me you all got some doctorates all up in here. And whether it's monthly or lump sum, you can't go wrong. You're going to have some benefit, right? Just a matter of whether it's a hunger issue or whether it's a greater investment issue to be able to do things right.

So I'm interested and Director Johnson, me, and my hair brain ideas, I will be proposing some type of trailer language to start working out. Kind of like, where are we going with this, right? And it is my hope that you will work with me to kind of begin to hammer some of those out. To be honest, I don't believe that we need to wait for the pilot to conclude.

I think we need to have a system set up so when the pilot concludes, we can actually get to work because I'm sure there's going to be some time needed and to be able to utilize this time moving forward as the budget begins to go along its journey. I know we're going to need some time trying to find a revenue source or trying to find something.

So I would love to be able to work with you starting now to begin to go down that path if you're willing to.

Glad to explore further.

Anyone else have any other comments before we conclude this panel? Thank you all so very much. Thank you for the work that you're doing. Looking forward to hearing more data as it comes out. Thank you. We'll now move on to issue number three, CalWORKs: Governor's Proposal to Eliminate Family Stabilization Program. Please come on up. Again, five minutes each and if you want, LAO and Department of Finance can come at the ends of the dais, and then the others can come here in the center.

Good afternoon. Kim Johnson, California Department of Social Services. The CalWORKS Family Stabilization has been a component of the CalWORKS program over the last 10 years, aiming to provide intensive case management and services to CalWORKS participants and their families who are experiencing a crisis or identified situation that is destabilizing their family and would interfere with an adult's ability to participate in welfare to work, such as domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues, and risk of homelessness.

Services can include more intensive case management, transitional housing, emergency shelter, rehabilitation services, counseling, and other services. While participating in Family Stabilization, families are not subject to sanctions or hourly work requirements and have an executed family stabilization plan rather than a welfare-to-work plan. CalWORKs Family Stabilization for fiscal year 22-23 expenditures were $60.4 million. The 23-24 expenditures are projected to be $60.5 million and additional information related to direct costs are included on page 31 of your agenda.

The trends in service utilization of family stabilization are of increasing utilization from 2017 to 2018, with utilizing sharply decreasing during the pandemic. Utilization has rebounded since the public health emergency drop, most recently in 22-23 but not to the levels pre-pandemic. The Governor's Budget proposes a reversion of $55 million General Fund in current year and a reduction of $71 million in budget year and annually thereafter, essentially eliminating the program. However, the Governor's Budget does not propose to statutorily eliminate the Family Stabilization Program.

I want to appreciate the numerous questions in the Committee's agenda related to why this particular program, and I want to first and foremost just appreciate the level of detail that's being impacted. Because for the Department of Social Services and the hard decisions that the Governor and Legislature have to make together for us, we serve people, so people are impacted. And so again, appreciate your attention to that and really understanding the implications.

As we discussed earlier on the agenda, we know that cash assistance for those experiencing poverty makes a significant difference. We've been talking about that in relationship to basic needs, and no proposals in our overall budget have been made to reduce CalWORKs grants, and in fact, we are continuing our original agreement to increase them in the coming budget year.

In terms of counties having flexibility, they'll have some flexibility to continue some of these services, but certainly not at the magnitude of what they are with the additional appropriation today. So glad to get into additional questions as we go on. Here for questions going forward.

Hi, good morning. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Joy Perrin.

Let's make sure you get in front of the mic, please. Yep, just bring it in close.

Okay. Hi. Hello. Good afternoon. Hi. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Joy Perrin and I am a SPAC leader from Project SPARC from Laney Community College. We are in support against making cuts to the CalWORKs' services. Family Stabilization services provide much-needed support for families on CalWORKs who are still struggling to stretch their grant to cover basic needs by providing additional services to support families experiencing crisis. As a CalWORKs student-parent attending community college, I'm working more than 20 hours a week.

I have faced many challenges over the years. Still, I overcame them with the help of some valuable programs. With a three-year-old and a one-year-old at the time, I was trying to escape an unhealthy environment and relationship. I asked myself, will I still be in this hopeless situation five years from now? I decided that I needed to make a change for myself and for my daughters so that they could experience a life without poverty.

I reached out to the Welfare Office and signed up for CalWORKs and food stamps. Then I enrolled in community college. At the moment, I was under 90 pounds, with mental health becoming overwhelming. And on top of that, being homeless. While CalWORKs provided free childcare and paid for my books and supplies, finding a safe place to study and do my homework was challenging. I had to bring my children to class, and the only time I had to look for a childcare was my days off.

Although the resources offered for CalWORKs were very helpful, they weren't enough to ensure my success. We used the money to ride for rent to survive, but we still didn't have a home to cook the food that we received for food stamps. Without a safe place to call home, the benefits were just a means of survival, not a path to a better life. Despite desperate for help, I went back to the welfare office and told them that someone might be able to reach out to me.

It wasn't guaranteed. While walking to the bus stop one day, I received a phone call from the Family Stabilization Program. They explained me who they were because I was unsure who they were when they called. They said it might not be a permanent help, but I knew in my response I said that this would be life-changing to me and my daughters. I began to the process of application with the program, and soon after, me and my daughters had a place to call home.

We could cook dinner together and have dance parties in the living room. It might have meant a lot to anybody, but it was a lot to us. The first time I was able to put my kids to sleep and do my homework. Fast forward to now. I have associates in science degree and I'm waiting to enter a radiology program. In the meantime, I'm using this time to work on my kinesiology degree to transfer to University.

I speak as an advocate for parents who have faced similar challenges. Looking back, I never would have imagined that I would be here where I am today. I thank God and all these programs for making my life something I can never believe that I have. It was because of the Family Stabilization Program that I achieved my goals. It would have forced me to remain in poverty. This program gave me the opportunity to show my children that we don't have to settle.

We can work hard and be resilient and provide. Poverty does not have to be our name. I could do what I didn't think was possible with the Family Stabilization Program. Not only am I a testimony of the power of these programs, but my children will be able to share their stories and how these programs change their path for their future too. These transformation programs have made a real impact, empowering families across California two generations at a time.

Their approach is changing lives and achieving remarkable success one family at a time. By providing CalWORKs families with this support, you ensure that we provide relief to Californians. And it is critical, because not only our basic needs are critical to be met, but the housing stabilization needs to be met first. I wouldn't have done any, be able to achieve any of my goals and where I am today, even in this room, I never thought that I would be here five years ago. Never.

So I thank you so much for hearing my story, and I hope it persuades you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Maria Rodriguez-Lopez, Deputy Director, Fresno County. Fresno County has contracted our family stabilization program to our local domestic violence provider, Marjorie Mason Center, since 2015. In addition to serving victims of domestic violence, we also link families experiencing homelessness and those with child welfare involvement. In 2023, Marjorie Mason Center received 8748 reports of domestic violence. In collaboration with Marjorie Mason Center, the Fresno County Case managers develop a care plan for the families we serve.

Services include domestic violence abuse service, including legal services, emergency shelters, transitional housing, whole family mental health services, parenting classes, safe groups, substance abuse services, and child enrichment workshops. Our current outcomes for the last fiscal year, we had 42% report a decrease in domestic violence barriers. 48% of participants in family stabilization reengaged in activities that led to self-sufficiency. 26% of participants secured deployment upon program completion. If this program is eliminated, we would further reduce available resources for those experiencing crisis.

In Fresno County, the poverty rate is 18.6%, which is higher than the national and state average. Budget reduction impacts would extend to the child welfare system, limiting available resources to prevent the removal of children or assistance in reunifying processes through our Linkages Program. The Linkages Program is a collaboration between CalWORKs and child welfare that creates a continuum of services and supports to promote child and family well-being.

Family stabilization case managers will expand services to attend every child family team meeting to provide access to needed resources. I would like to share one of the many success stories for lack of anonymity. I'm just going to call her client enrolled in the Family Stabilization Program fled her home after a life-threatening encounter. She was placed at the Marjorie Mason Center Emergency Shelter. The client and her children were able to receive the mental health support they needed due to their exposure to trauma.

As she successfully progressed through the program, she was placed into transitional housing. As she completed the program, she was able to secure stable housing, become employed, and re-enroll at the California State University, Fresno. I am proud to report that two years after program completion, she has graduated with a bachelor's degree in social work. She attributes her success to her participation in the Family Stabilization Program, where she learned life skills that provided the empowerment she needed to succeed.

In closure, a recent study in California conducted in 2023, through various listening sessions with parent survivors of domestic violence, direct service agency advocates and government staff found that one significant recommendation was the need to expand the Family Stabilization Program. Funding, like Family Stabilization and the CalWORKs' single allocation help ensure families have the needed services to overcome poverty. These cuts disproportionately place the burden of resolving statewide budget deficits on very low-income families, undermining the significant work done to align the program to the state's core values.

Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca Gonzales and I'm with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. I want to thank you for this in-depth attention to CalWORKs and the devastating cuts proposed that threaten to destabilize our lowest-income families. First, a little background on the program. CalWORKs provides life-saving cash aid and supportive services to over 650,000 children living in 350,000 families, which are overwhelmingly led by women, 90% with a disproportionate share of families being Latinx at nearly 60% and Black at 17%.

These families face huge barriers such as racial and ethnic discrimination and systemic barriers to economic prosperity. The CalWORKs program is a product of federal law that is premised on racist and sexist stereotypes of poor people, especially Black women, as being unable to manage their lives and who need government oversight to access cash assistance. As the program has evolved, supportive services such as the Family Stabilization Program have become essential to provide CalWORKs families the tools they need to become economically self-sufficient.

The proposed elimination of the Family Stabilization Program, which supports CalWORKs families to ensure housing, mental health safety, and family stability, fails to recognize the barriers low-income people face. These barriers include a lack of affordable housing options, mental health challenges, domestic violence situations, all which threaten the stability of a family. Since 2014, this program has been instrumental in providing supportive services beyond cash assistance that are necessary to enable success. This program has provided over 30,000 adult and child support services each year since 2017.

Without these services, there can be a host of negative outcomes, with homelessness being one. Reflecting the state's own homeless crisis, housing assistance has grown to be the largest expenditure within the program, accounting for over 30%. The Family Stabilization Program provides rental assistance, security deposits, and payments for hotels or assistance paying utility bills, which keep families housed. Staying housed makes it easier for a person to find, hold, and retain a job, as well as providing a stable environment for the family, which helps children succeed in school.

Staying housed will also help the mental health of everyone in the family by providing a safe and secure environment. Support for mental health challenges also include services for substance abuse and domestic violence services can include getting people to a safe location and counseling. We have heard of many success stories from families who have been served by this program. Help staying housed or help with a behavioral health crisis can enable a person to finish school and or find a job that pays the bills.

By contrast, cuts have human consequences, pushing families past the brink. Just last fall, a baby died at a bus stop near LAX after the mother had made repeated attempts to access aid since she was unhoused. Although unclear whether these attempts to access services included access to this program, we believe this infant's tragic death was avoidable. Because it is so effective and already fully expended, our reimagined efforts targets Family Stabilization as a program that we need to strengthen, not eliminate.

In fact, clients report not being aware of the Family Stabilization Program and if they were aware, they had difficulty accessing services, being told it's not part of a county's family stabilization plan. These cuts pull the rug out from under these families, pushing them into deeper poverty and homelessness and causing unnecessary child welfare cases.

Every $1 in TANF, the federal name for CalWORKs received by a family saves $8 by preventing increases in child protective services, worsened children and parents' health, and reductions in future education, employment, and earnings, it took us over a decade to recover from the harmful cuts to safety net programs during the Great Recession. We understand it is a bad budget year, but cuts to our most vulnerable Californians should be off the table as a budget solution. These cuts result in more costs as we will have more families on the street who are food insecure and with unmet behavioral health needs.

I don't think this is the California any of us wants to see, so we ask you to please retain this very important program. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Barri Dommer and I've been a social worker for more than 20 years in Santa Cruz County. Currently, I supervise the Santa Cruz County Family Stabilization Program with CalWORKs. I'm also an SEIU 521 Member, as are the social workers on our FS team. I'm here to share that our team strongly opposes the proposed elimination of the statewide Family Stabilization Program. Our team is comprised of highly skilled social workers who serve vulnerable families with children who are living in poverty.

Family Stabilization provides crisis intervention and intensive case management. In our work, we literally house homeless families, treat those suffering from trauma and other mental health issues, increase safety for those impacted by domestic violence, and assist those with severe addiction to engage in treatment. We are all clinically trained in treating trauma and complex human behavioral issues and are often the singular safety net resource for the families with whom we work.

We create opportunities for positive change in people's lives through the close professional relationships we build with our clients. In stabilizing families, we also increase job readiness, employment, and self-sufficiency within our community. With regards to Governor Newsom's goal of addressing California's humanitarian crisis, please note that we are an established program that is already successfully working to reduce homelessness, mental health crisis, and substance use in our county and our state. To eliminate Family Stabilization would be prohibitive to reaching this important goal.

If Family Stabilization is eliminated, California communities would experience the following negative impacts: increased homelessness, increased mental health and substance use crisis, increased number of victims of domestic violence who are not getting help, increased incidents of childhood trauma, increased referrals to child welfare, and an increased reliance and time on public assistance. Additionally, the loss of Family Stabilization would increase dependence and strain on safety net services such as emergency rooms, police, paramedics, and the legal system.

Our work in family stabilization is heavily focused on prevention, and it serves to offset the costs that counties and the state would otherwise incur. We respectfully urge each of you to consider the consequences if this program is cut. We sincerely believe it would be a step backwards for meeting the needs of the state's most vulnerable children and parents. Thank you for taking the time to hear our concerns. We greatly appreciate your shared commitment to the well-being of families in California.

Thank you very much. Department of Finance.

Emily Marshall Department of Finance nothing further to add at this time, but happy to answer any questions.

LAO.

Sonia Schrager Russo with the Legislative Analyst Office. In light of the budget situation, we recommend that the Legislature consider how program elimination may or may not align with its overall goals for the CalWORKs program long-term. As my colleagues on the panel have mentioned, eliminating this program may disproportionately and negatively impact CalWORKs families experiencing crisis situations, such as those experiencing homelessness, domestic violence or substance abuse, or mental health issues.

However, as previously mentioned, ongoing reductions will be necessary in this budget given the budget problem that the state is facing and for any proposed solutions from the Governor's Budget that the Legislature chooses to reject, it will need to solve for that portion of the budget problem elsewhere in the budget. Additionally, we would recommend that the Legislature exercise caution in planning for current-year reductions. The Governor's Budget proposes reducing current-year funding for Family Stabilization in full.

However, as a couple of members of the panel have mentioned funding for this program has been fully expended in recent years. And therefore, since counties are already spending current-year funding at the moment, their proposed current-year reductions are unlikely to materialize in full.

Thank you very much. As I've noted before in my opening remarks, this Committee really has one standard in terms of how we are viewing any proposed cuts, delays, or reversions, and that is that it's the number one responsibility of this budget to keep our population stable. And any proposal that is going to put our population from not maintaining stability or even falling into a sate of crisis, this Committee will be opposed to. And so with that, this Committee is opposed to eliminating the Family Stabilization Program.

But we are not going to just leave it at that because we believe it is our responsibility as a Budget Committee to continue to help with what is clearly a budget problem.

Therefore, we are working closely with the LAO's office with some pretty clear request to find other places that if this Committee is asked to help with the budget solutions that clearly I have no doubt we will be asked to do at some point, we want to make sure that we're not just saying no to things, but we are also being a part of the solution, because if we do not solve this budget issue, there's going to be people hurt that don't have to be hurt.

And so with that, I look forward to working with the Governor's Administration and working with the LAO so that we can dive deeper and expand what is being considered for any cuts, delays, or reversions to this process. But we will get this done, but we will make sure that this is done in a just way. So with that, I want to thank this panel. We are moving on. We're rocking. We're rocking you all. Issue number four: Governor's Proposal to Eliminate Subsidized Employment Program.

I'm trying to get through as many of these as possible before I have to skedaddle. I haven't used that in a while that, I don't know where that came from. Skedaddle.

Department of Social Services for issue four. As we know, for CalWORKS and welfare to work, participants can take part in a number of different activities such as employment activities, both subsidized and unsubsidized, vocational education, job search, job readiness activities, work experience, community service, job skills training, adult basic education, secondary school, and more.

The expanded subsidized employment program has operated over the past 10 years to provide subsidized employment opportunities to CalWORKS participants, offering a valuable skill-building and job experience that have led to higher wages and unsubsidized employment. Counties partner with private, nonprofit, and public agencies to provide participants with job experience. Employment placements through expanded subsidized employment are typically six months or Shorter in length but can be extended up to a total of 12 months. The program serves approximately 8250 participants per month.

Fiscal year 2021-22 expenditures were $83.8 million. 22-23 expenditures were 90.5 million. I'd refer you to your chart on page 36 of your agenda for additional detail. The governor's budget proposes to revert funding from the CalWORKS sensitized employment program by 134.1 million in current year and reduce funding by the same amount in budget year and annually thereafter. This would effectively eliminate the program. However, the governor's budget again does not propose statutorily eliminating the program.

Counties again will have some flexibility to continue to provide some subsidized employment services to families, but certainly not to the same degree that they have today. With the inclusion of additional funding, counties will continue to provide employment services and job retention services via the single allocation. Also would note that alternative subsidized employment and apprenticeship opportunities may also be available to CalWORKS participants through the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, or WIOA, and California Employment Development Department, EDD.

In recent conversations with counties, we have certainly heard counties being interested in understanding their opportunity to expend funds through single allocation should any proposal go through going forward. We also would note that the relationships that have been established between the county and employers could continue post this proposal. The committee also asked around the educational attainment of CalWORKS participants. Just the data is outlined in your agenda, but for 2022, 60% of CalWORKS participants did not have a high school diploma, 34% did. And certainly again, this employment opportunity supports those in the program. And with that, I'm here for any questions.

Hi to everyone. For me, it's a pleasure to be able to talk to you guys. I'm an immigrant. I'm glad to say my name is Lucy Paz Alegria. I have to read this so it's more easy for me to explain. I'm sorry. Recently I just get a 130 yesterday. I'm really happy with the law department from San Mateo County. But I'm here also to support and say the truth about what happened inside. Around Christmas time of 2022, I reached out to CalWORKS.

My ex-husband lost his job and we didn't have enough money. Unfortunately, he choose to keep doing alcohol and being in that way. So we have more problems. The rent comes and it's no money available. For me, it was important to keep looking up for help and the application process was very complicated. At the beginning, they sent me to one place, they sent me to another. They thought, you speak Spanish, you should go to Redwood City. Yeah, but I'm bilingual. I can speak two languages too.

So then go to Daly City again. Then again return to Belmont. Finally and sadly, in March of 2022. One year previously, he was telling me threats about that something bad can happen to us. And on March of 2023, he hit us. He destroyed my apartment where we live. He hit my son also. But I'm so thankful that the department was helping me to get into this subsidy program. I've been helped for a year with CalWORKS. Kimberly Hill is not my worker, but she's an angel there.

I have to say there is many things that I have to be pointed out, but one of them is that unfortunately, I don't think one year is enough to heal and get out from the past of DV. I'm currently homeless and I'm living in a hotel. I'm not Wonder Woman and I don't want to be. I'm so grateful that for my subsidy improvement job, I was placed in a position for welcome families.

When they walk in the door, they see me and they say, oh, is someone like me who knows what it feels? The desperation that I feel is like someone that is coming to talk to you but you speak Chinese or Tagolog. I need more from this job than what you guys think I really deserve. I don't think it's a good solution to cut the programs.

I try to be more shorty about the story, but I know it's going to sound confusing, but every single day can be Mexicans, Venezuelans, Peruvians. But we're immigrants and we're humans that were knocking the door to try to get CalWORKS and CalWORKS saved me. CalWORKS is a great program, but we need the workers to work together as well with the people that is working in as people, not just numbers. I'm so glad to say I'm safe.

I'm so glad to say that my kids now, they're going to have a better future. I'm stable. But definitely, I know that my case worker has to have more time for me sometimes to be able to communicate with me, at least to know what is next. It's very sad that there are so many barriers for people like us who need help and the only thing they make is excuses. So why we cannot support more people instead of cutting the programs because these programs are really working.

Last year without this, I was a really insecure woman, never working. I start with 4 hours and now I have to work eight. My kids are proud of me every single day because they know mommy is working and they feel like it's a whole new dynamic. I'm here to tell the truth. And what it means is that if we cut funding, it's going to be really bad for a lot of people in San Mateo County.

And we cannot allow the governor to propose the codes to make this like a final budget. Even though work isn't perfect, isn't lifeline for many people when they need it. We need to keep working together to improve CalWORKS. Cutting programs like subsidy employment is not the answer. And it's just going to make it even harder for families and also for you guys because I face these clients every day in the resource centers to meet the needs.

Is not easy to be in California, but I don't want to be in a living dream situation. I want to be able to say in two years I'm an employee from the county and I'm making my own money and my own decisions. But like I said, I'm not Wonder Woman. It's not going to be in one year. Thank you, guys. I'm demanding to be in a safe way of communication because we need a lot of support, people like me. Domestic violence is not easy for me. Can you imagine how easy it is for a kid that was being hit knowing that he's autistic? I have a son that I'm proud to say he's my hero. And now he knows the mommy can make it, but it takes a little bit more of time. Thank you.

Thank you. You sound like a Wonder Woman to me. I don't know. Next.

Good afternoon. Thank you for sharing your story. It's not easy. My name is Susie Smith and I'm deputy director for policy planning and public affairs at the San Francisco Human Services Agency. San Francisco has a long history in testing, evaluating, and advocating to sustain subsidized employment programs as a proven strategy to help job seekers get a foot in the door.

In fact, pre-state adoption of ESE, San Francisco launched the first subsidized employment program during the Great Recession using American Recovery Act dollars under then-Mayor Newsom. Our governor was instrumental in lobbying Congress to appropriate funds to extend our funded program in the long-tail recovery from the Great Recession.

In fact, in a statement released shortly after the House vote, then-Mayor Newsom said today Congress took a major step towards putting hundreds of thousands of Californians back to work by approving an extension of the program that funds San Francisco's Jobs Now program and other county job programs across California. And just for fun, the picture of Mayor Newsom at city hall when we had our 4000th job hire through this Jobs Now program, and he was honored recognizing himself as an Atlanta national leader.

And through his leadership, we actually got the ESE program. So we do have a long history. So what exactly is subsidized jobs? Why is it so important and what is the data to say about its success? Our CalWORKS families have many strengths, but they often face educational barriers and systemic racism that makes it hard for them to land good jobs. One-third of the families on CalWORKS in San Francisco have not had the opportunity to graduate high school.

71% do not have postsecondary education. 7% report that they've never had an opportunity to work. When you layer the lack of access to job opportunities that comes from systemic racism, from not having those professional support networks on top of all of the educational and work experience barriers that our families face, it creates this almost impossible hurdle to overcome and land a decent job. Programs like subsidized employment help families get that foot in the door.

To place CalWORKS parents in appropriate jobs, we partner in San Francisco with 15 nonprofit organizations, 15 city departments in San Francisco, and over 100 private sector employers. Businesses ranging from small businesses like neighborhood child centers, medical and dental offices, local restaurants, and large to larger ones like UCSF and the City and County of San Francisco. And in fact, CWDA did a survey of all the counties to understand who the employers were.

And we have a list pages long of how this is a generator for local economies, which we can leave with you if helpful. We provide salary subsidies of $4,000 per month for full-time hires for six months, up to six months. In return, we require that the businesses do three things. One, they must provide on-the-job training and vocational training.

Second, there must be a permanent vacancy at the end of the day so that when the subsidy ends, there's a place for the person to remain. And third, the employer must commit to hire our clients after the subsidy ends. We even have a rating system for employers for whether or not they retain our clients post-subsidy, and we stop partnering with the ones that don't retain them.

Meanwhile, we at the county wrap supportive services around the CalWORKS parent to ensure their success in both getting and maintaining the job. Everything from interview prep to clothes to go to the interview to transportation to childcare subsidies. Without the employment subsidy, employers are simply unlikely to select our parents over someone who has experience in the job. Simply put, it's the subsidy that levels the playing field, and it gives our families the opportunity to prove that they can do the job.

In San Francisco, our ESE program has provided job opportunities to 1900 CalWORKS participants and helped many launch careers and transition off of public benefits. Asked what could take its place if this program were cut, simply put, nothing. The subsidy is that carrot for people who would otherwise be overlooked, and it's what the studies have shown makes the difference. Our program was launched in mid-2013. Since then, median wages nearly tripled before and after program participation.

Over 61% of participants in San Francisco had earnings one year after the subsidy ended. And even longer term, 60% had earnings five years after exit. In supporting families towards self-sufficiency, the state also saves money because we find that 70% of CalWORKS clients who participate in the program are no longer eligible for cash assistance after, so they stay off of benefits. I do have a story that I could share if you're interested.

I know I'm at time, but I did want to share one story with our partnership with UCSF and Jewish vocational services, where we train CalWORKS parents for a career in the healthcare sector.

Yeah, if you can start to wrap it up, that'll be great.

Okay, so this is a story of a woman named Sonia, and the UCSF did a video of her. And in that video, here's what she said. A year ago, my life was totally different. A year ago, I did not have a job. I didn't have a place to live, a stable home. I was living with relatives. And when I got into the UCSF program, it turned my whole life around. It built up my self-esteem. It gave me confidence.

It gave me the skills I needed to go out and find a second career. It's so easy to just give up. It's so easy to just throw in the towel and say, forget it. But I never like to take the easy way out. I'd rather give it all I got and go hard or go home. And at that time, I did not have a home. So I had no choice but to move forward. I have a great manager here at UCSF.

We have a great plan for my career. I'm ready to climb the ladder this year for my kids. It has been a very exciting year for them. They have their own rooms now. They can ask me for things that I can provide them. A year ago, they couldn't. They couldn't say, hey, mom, can you get me a pair of sneakers this year? It's like, what kind do you want? So it's given us hope, and we didn't have that before. When Sonia graduated that program, the UCSF hired her as a medical assistant where she still works. Thank you for listening to our story.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Jennifer Greppi, and I'm a former CalWORKS participant and the policy director of Parent Voices California. I've spoken to hundreds of families directly about their experience navigating today's cowworks program. What I know is that CalWORKS cannot be a one-size-fits-all all program. At its best, it's made up of multiple puzzle pieces that come together to meet the unique needs of each family.

Cash aid is a puzzle piece, childcare, transportation, education therapy, substance abuse treatment, and what we're here to talk about today, subsidized employment. For some families who are ready to work, subsidized employment services could be the missing puzzle piece for that family. For those who are facing mental health challenges or trauma and are not stable enough to commit to a job, family stabilization is another puzzle piece. What families on CalWORKS need are good-paying jobs created through subsidized employment that provide real opportunities for participants.

I recently read a report from the counties that listed subsidized jobs from Wienersnitzel, Party City, and Carl's Jr. And jobs like these that make it so that parents have to stay on food stamps and Medi-Cal are not the type of good paying jobs that subsidized employment should be supporting. We need to have guardrails against low-wage jobs being eligible for programs like this.

However, good union jobs, trade jobs, or county jobs to work in social services are definitely something that should be a priority for subsidized employment. As an example, in Alameda County, the CalWORKS public service training program has an average starting wage of $29 an hour upon exiting the program, and five years after participants were making $34 an hour on average. This is quite a contrast from what other counties where people were making minimum wage.

The success of CalWORKS should not simply be get a job, any job it should be getting, and keeping a good-paying job that leads to dignity, pride, and a career. Parent Voices members for a long time have been asking for navigators who can help them truly understand what the CalWORKS program has to offer. Oftentimes they are only offered one piece of the puzzle instead of all of the puzzle pieces.

The only option that's offered might be job club, and no one's telling them that they have a full array of options available. We recently produced a report called Building Healing Systems and Thriving Families to inform CDSS with recommendations to improve the system by program participants. One of their recommendations is a cultural navigator program led by paid members of the community who serve as guides for other families looking to access CDSS services. Community members are often the ones sharing relevant information regarding supportive services to other families.

Parents were frustrated that community members went unpaid for this work, especially since there are staff who are paid to do it. Navigators should be part of any good subsidized employment program. Parents also want to be county caseworkers themselves, which are good-paying union jobs that have benefits, retirement, and pension, and that are real pathways out of poverty for participants. It also helps to support the work of creating a system that is more empathetic and understanding of what people are going through.

So often we hear from participants that nobody seems to care about what they're going through and are harmed as they are trying to get their basic needs met. When one participant helps to support another participant, we can begin to heal some of the harms that have been caused. A good subsidized employment program coupled with childcare and transportation that lead to job retention, career growth, and independence is what every family on CalWORKS deserves. Is the subsidized employment program perfect? No.

But does it work when it's delivered in a way that treats families on CalWORKS with dignity and respect? Absolutely. Subsidized employment is a key program for those who are ready to get to work. We call on the Legislature to reject the double cut to CalWORKS that eliminates subsidized employment, family stabilization and drains the safety net reserve. These programs are serving predominantly black and brown mothers and children and actually recognize their humanity.

Each family comes with their own unique needs, and yet they're faced with a system that consistently dehumanizes them, makes them feel unworthy, and denies them the resources that could actually help them realize their dream and break generational poverty. Do not balance the budget on their backs. Believe me, the load that they carry is already too heavy.

Thank you very much. Department of Finance. If people can hold their claps, please get your hands waving. Get your hands waving. You all better act right. All right. Department of Finance.

Sonia Schrager Russo with the Legislative Analyst Office. We'd like to start by providing one point of clarification to ensure the committee is fully understanding this proposal from the governor's budget. This program is called the expanded subsidized employment program because it was an addition to an older subsidized employment program. This is now the only subsidized employment program available statewide, so there is no original one anymore. You can ignore the expanded part, essentially.

Emily Marshall, Department of Finance. No further comment.

LAO.

So coming next to our recommendations for the Legislature as to how we recommend you all think about this proposal, we do recommend, again that the Legislature consider how this proposed elimination may or may not align with its overall long-term goals for the CalWORKS program. As my colleagues on the panel have mentioned, eliminating this program may impact the employment and earnings of some CalWORKS recipients.

And again, we recommend that the Legislature assess this proposal through the lens that ongoing reductions will be needed in this budget and any rejected proposals will need to be solved for elsewhere. We would also make a similar recommendation around current year reductions in terms of exercising caution in terms of the governor's proposed reductions in the current year. Again, the governor has proposed reducing all funds in the current year for this program. However, unlike family stabilization, subsidized employment funding has been underspent in recent years.

So, for example, about 90 million of the $134,000,000 appropriated to subsidize employment was spent in 22-23. While participation and spending within this program has been ramping back up since the pandemic. Since it did decrease during the pandemic due to in-person restrictions, some of the funds may go unspent in the current year. So if the Legislature decides it doesn't want to eliminate funding for this program in its entirety, this program could present an opportunity to right-size funding in some way.

Thank you very much. We will hold this issue open and we will move on to our next issue. Thank you very much. For those who participated in this panel, we're going to try to get through one more panel before we recess. Issue number five, CalWORKS governor's proposal to reduce county administrative funding and to eliminate intensive care hours implementation.

Kim Johnson, Department of Social Services, thank you, Chair. I'm going to take these in components so you can clearly understand the proposal in each section. So for this, again, a single allocation is based on projected caseload. Counties receive a fixed amount of funding annually for administering CalWORKS and providing employment services. The funding is provided to counties in a single allocation block grant, which allows the fungibility across three components, eligibility administration, employment services, and Cal Learn intensive case management. One of the proposals is a reversion.

It's addressing the projected state budget shortfall. Governor's budget proposes to revert $336,000,000 of unused general fund from the fiscal year 22-23 CalWORKS single allocation on an earlier timeline, rather than waiting until June 30, 2025 when the funding would naturally return to the general fund. The department is committed to engaging with the county Welfare Directors Association to determine the precise amount available in the 22-23 allocation. This early reversion will not have an impact on client supports and services.

The current year reduction plus so the governor's budget includes $1.7 billion for the single allocation in current year, representing a decrease of 40.8 million compared to the Budget Act due to the proposed reversion of the ongoing eligibility administration augmentation. To address the shortfall, the $40.8 million is proposed to be reduced ongoing.

This proposal would result in less funding for counties to administer the CalWORKS program, which includes determining eligibility and case management, as would the governor's budget proposal, including $1.5 billion for the single allocation in budget year, representing a decrease of $159.8 billion from current year, which reflects the decrease in employment services caseload, one-time nature of the CalWORKS eligibility administration supplement, or that $55 million, as well as a decrease in one funding increment of $27.5 million due to the caseload level.

Finally, the intensive case management there's a proposed delay for the planned increase for the intensive case management hours to address the shortfall which impacts budget year and ongoing. Intensive case management provides more intensive and or one-on-one support for CalWORKS participants who may need additional assistance in overcoming barriers to employment for stability.

The governor's budget proposes to delay the planned increase to intensive case management hours to address the shortfall, resulting in savings of $46.9 million general fund in budget year and 47.4 million general fund annually thereafter. Per current law, the number of hours per case per month budgeted for intensive CalWORKS cases was incrementally increased from 5 hours to 6.25 hours in 21-22, 7 and a half hours to 20 in 22-23, 8.75 hours in 23-24, and 10 hours in budget in budget year. So again, we're holding at that 8.75. That's currently the case and glad to answer any questions.

Good afternoon. Eileen Cubanski with the County Welfare Directors Association. The agenda and Director Johnson have done a good job of kind of summarizing the status of the single allocation and what it is. I will just say that the bulk of the money that's provided in the single allocation is budgeted for employment services, about 69% of it. The most of the remainder is budgeted for the eligibility component, but it's a fungible source, and so we cover costs across those two main components of the single as we need to.

This is all very dry. I'm going to try to put some actual feeling behind some of this, but first, some more numbers for you. Although there are projected caseload adjustments in there and some other just straight-up cuts, the implication of that is this, or the result of it is this. It's a net $200 million ongoing funding reduction to the single allocation. Of that 46 million starts this year, and the rest, the 172,000,000 starts next year, and it's ongoing.

It's a 13% year-over-year reduction to the funding that's being provided to us. But that masks what's going on within the single allocation. Within the single. The eligibility component is looking at a 25% year-over-year reduction, whereas the eligibility piece is looking at a seven-and-a-half percent reduction. And I'll tell you why that matters, because even though it's true, we've underspent the single allocation in the past few years, and I'm happy to provide more context for that if you're interested.

But even though that's true, at our current spending levels for the single allocation, what these cuts mean for us is that we're actually kind of cutting to the bone here. These funding reductions will put the single allocation at a level lower than what we're actually spending right now, and that's largely due to the underfunding of the eligibility component. Based on our back-of-the-envelope calculations, the eligibility component next year, if these cuts go through, is going to be over $340,000,000 underfunded.

That's about half, it's about 45% underfunding. And what that means is we have to take funding from the employment services component to cover, to backfill for that shortfall in the eligibility side, because we have no choice but to do those eligibility functions which are mandated by law, and we want to provide access to the program for families who are in need of the services and the cash aid.

So just to start now, putting some real impacts behind it, what this means is it completely erodes all the additional funding that we've been provided for the enhanced case management. It is theoretically still budgeted there, but we've got to shift it all over and cover the shortfall on the eligibility side. This is the funding that we use to provide case management to those families with the most intensive needs that you've just heard up here testifying.

Those with the highest barriers, our ability to provide that additional support, the linkages to other services and to follow through with that, it's completely gone. With these reductions, we're going to have to discontinue crucial services and contractual commitments to help families overcome barriers to employment. This isn't just job search classes or resume writing help. This is provision of credit reduction services that play a pivotal role in facilitating access to housing and employment and legal services to remove barriers to education, employment, and career advancement.

We're talking about tangible supports to parents that support educational employment attainment, books, uniforms, other supplies, transportation. To achieve a cut of $100 million, counties are going to need to impose hiring freezes. If we had to eliminate staff and positions to absorb a cut of that magnitude, we'd be looking at the loss of 500 positions in the CalWORKS program statewide. And I know it's easy to get frustrated with county workers. We're an easy target, but we're asking them to do an impossible job.

They've got to determine eligibility for a program with rules designed to be as complicated as possible and help families navigate siloed and complex systems, all with these really high caseloads that they carry. Eligibility work is not administration. It's a service that we provide, and it's a service that our families are entitled to and need. It's a service we've mostly starved for at least the last decade, and then we get frustrated when it doesn't work as well as we think it should.

County human services agencies, from the leadership down to the line worker, have worked tirelessly over the past decade to change the culture of the CalWORKS program from a compliance-oriented system to a family-focused one that seeks to address the sources of economic and financial instability and help families buffer the most toxic effects of deep poverty.

And these cuts to the single allocation layered upon the other proposed eliminations are going to reverse all that good work that we've done and really prevent us from doing more of the work that we absolutely have to be doing going forward. So I know I've hit your buzzer. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Department of Finance.

Emily Marshall, Department of Finance, no additional comment.

LAO.

Sonia Schrager Russo with the Legislative Analyst Office. The potential impacts of the proposed reduction and delay here are not fully clear. While, as mentioned, the overall single allocation has been underspent in recent years, counties do report, again, as has been mentioned, that they are consistently using employment services funds for the administration and eligibility costs, which again, as mentioned, are required of them, and they're reporting that the funding for the administrative component of the single allocation has not kept up with growing local costs.

We, therefore, recommend that the Legislature consider the potential adverse impacts of these proposed reductions, especially on employment services and the ability to provide those services to local CalWORKS recipients, especially as the state continues to increase its focus on alternative outcome measures within CalWORKS, such as long term employment outcomes.

Additionally, given the upcoming triennial reassessment for this component of the single allocation, we also recommend that the Legislature ask the administration if this proposal should be considered a placeholder until May, at which time, based on our understanding, the methodology for this component will be reassessed.

It's of the opinion of this committee that because there's so much going on in that area, we believe that there are certain areas in which we can take a look at. But we want to make sure that we are very careful because we want to preserve the ability to process people appropriately so that they cannot fall into crisis or that they are able to remain stable.

So I look forward to working with the administration on this and taking a deeper dive with stakeholders as well as LAO to kind of sparse out all of the kind of components here. Obviously, there are some reversions in terms of things that we may not have spent from past fiscal year. I honestly believe that is reasonable. However, when we talk about moving forward, we got to make sure that it's not impacting what we need to do. There is no doubt caseloads are horrific. I get it.

And we've got to make sure that we're processing people in a more timely manner. So let's continue to dig deep into this. It's going to take some back and forth, but obviously, we want to make sure that we're being responsible with the people that are being served, but also making sure that we're helping to find solutions to our budget issues as well. So we will hold this issue open. And so I want to thank this panel and we will recess until 5:00. I'll try to come back earlier, but right now the time is 05:00. Thank you.

We are going to bring this hearing back to order. Starting off, we actually made some great progress before we had recess, so we're starting off with Issue Number Six: Cal WORKs Housing and Homeless in the CalWORKs Population. Please come on up, panelists for Issue Number Six.

And as always, we ask everyone have until--keep it to five minutes or less. I should start having some candy. And if you're under five minutes, I'll throw you some candy. So I think that's going to start doing it. Yeah, we'll try it. And as always, please just introduce yourself and we will go by the order of the agenda. You may begin when you're ready.

Good afternoon. My name is Hanna Azemati, and I'm the Deputy Director of the California Department of Social Services Housing and Homelessness Division or HHD. HHD designs, supports, and oversees the delivery of programs that are tailored to the unique needs of families, older adults, and people with disabilities who are experiencing homelessness or housing instability and are served through local social service agencies.

We oversee two programs that were created in response to the critical need for housing and homelessness services amongst families in receipt of CalWORKs, the CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Program or HA, as well as the CalWORKs Housing Support Program or HSP. HA is an entitlement program available in all 58 counties. It can help a family secure or maintain permanent housing by paying for security deposit and last month's rent or up to two months of back rent.

Through temporary HA, the program can also help a family obtain up to 16 nights of emergency shelter when experiencing homelessness. It is typically available to families up to once a year. HSP is intended to foster housing stability for families experiencing or at risk of homelessness in the CalWORKs program and is available in 55 counties.

It provides families with a host of supports needed to overcome a housing crisis, including case management, housing navigation, and flexible housing-related financial assistance, which can cover anything from rental subsidies, security deposits, move-in costs, accessibility improvements, landlord mediation, and other needs. The agenda already included a robust summary of what we know about the rates of housing and homelessness in the CalWORKs population.

So in the interest of time, I will move to the second question in the agenda on trends in housing support and homelessness over the past several years. I will start by highlighting recent budget trends. For HSB, the Budget Act of 2021 and 2022, each appropriated a historic 285 million dollars including one-time funding of 190 million as well as the annual ongoing funding of 95 million.

The first tranche of one-time funding is scheduled to sunset at the end of June 2024 and is proposed in the Governor's budget to be extended until the end of June 2025. The second and final tranche of the one-time funds will sunset June 30th, 2025. In response to the significant one-time infusions, the 55 counties operating HSP were able to rapidly scale up programs to meet the need of families experiencing housing instability and homelessness in their communities.

And as we approach the end of the one-time funds, counties are now actively planning for how they can continue to leverage HSP to effectively support as many families as possible, but at the more limited scale of the ongoing funding. I will now speak to the recent trends related to program impact and outcomes. CDSS saw a large temporary dip in fiscal year 2020 to 2021 in requests and approvals for our programs due to Covid related resources and policies.

As those ended, the number of requests and approvals for our programs rebounded and even surpassed pre-Covid levels. For HA, we have seen a large increase in demand over the two-year period ending June 2023. Requests for temporary HA have doubled and requests for permanent HA have nearly tripled in this two-year period. Similarly, for HSP, we have seen a large increase in the demand for services, and counties and local operators have risen to the occasion to address the surging need.

Over the two-year period ending June 2023, requests for HSP have more than doubled. Similarly, the number of families served nearly doubled as well. Furthermore, with a change in statute allowing HSP to serve families at risk of homelessness, we have seen the proportion of at-risk CalWORKs families in HSP nearly triple over the two-year period ending June 2023.

We have also been able to deliver on outcomes. Since HSP's inception in 2014 through June 2023, more than 74,100 families were served, and of those, 40,100 families were permanently housed through HSP. Finally, I will address the third and fourth questions regarding the conditions of families in the program and the barriers the families and children are facing more broadly, as well as the supports and services that this suggests should be increased.

Counties have reported that the core components of HSP have supported families in addressing barriers to housing in a way that they could not have done alone. In particular, HSP's flexible funding, emphasis on tailored wraparound services, and ongoing connections to broader set of community-based services as needed have been critical. Counties have reported that 88 percent of participants retained housing six months after exiting HSP if they were housed, and 70 percent increased income during and after HSP, and 25 percent improved employment and educational circumstances.

At CDSS, we believe that housing stability is the foundation for families succeeding in other systems, including education, workforce, child and family well-being, and health. Supporting families in obtaining and retaining stable housing is critical not only to address the homelessness crisis, but also to break the cycle of intergenerational poverty, which disproportionately affects people of color. Thank you for your time today, and I'll be happy to take questions and comments.

We're going by the order of the agenda. Do you know where you all are? Glenda Brownell?

That would be me.

Okay. You're on.

Okay. So good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Glenda Brownell, and I'm a SPARC leader with Project SPARC, Student Parents Are Reimagining CalWORKs, and I am a student at American River College. We are against making cuts to CalWORKs services, and any changes to CalWORKs should support families, not hurt them. Housing services provide much needed support for families on CalWORKs who are still struggling to stretch their grant to cover basic necessities by providing additional services to support families experiencing crisis.

As a CalWORK student parent attending community college and working more than 20 hours a week, I have struggled with housing. Housing costs take up all of my CalWORKs grant money, and if it weren't for my work-study job, I wouldn't be able to make ends meet. I've experienced housing instability many times while on CalWORKs. The CalWORKs family stability programs are a crucial part of giving families the step up we need to improve our lives.

When we get the resources we need--we need to provide for our families--our children's success, health, and happiness become a direct consequence of our stability. Instead of proposing cuts, we should be talking about improving the program. We should be talking about changes, proposed changes that could benefit families like mine, not hurt them. So I faced homelessness, and one of my greatest fears is to be living on the streets. But I can tell you I'm here today as a direct result of the program.

But I can't say that it was easy, right? It was hard. It was a struggle trying to get the services that I need. I had to go back and forth. They gave me a seven day voucher, and then when that seven days ran out, I had to go back, and just waiting to get approved was so stressful. It was a stressful moment in our lives, but I am grateful for the program, right? Because I'm here today to say that I'm a direct result of that program.

And I have an apartment, and I've been able to manage my written bills without the fear of becoming homeless. I'm able to attend school. My kids are happy. That stability means a lot, right? But I can't say with certainty that I won't need that assistance again in the future, right? Those CalWORKs housing services are a lifesaver for many families. I often wonder what would happen to the thousands of other vulnerable CalWORKs families if the service is cut.

Me and my family have benefited from this program and to think that it will no longer be there for me if I need it in the future is frightening. Our housing crisis across California, as many of you know, has grown exponentially over the past few years, and cutting this vital resource for families like mine, California's most vulnerable, means we will likely add to the crisis. By providing CalWORKs families with the support, you ensure that we provide relief to Californians.

And it is critical because not only are basic necessities crucial to providing for our families, for our children's stability, but stable housing is a major contributor to the stability of our families' lives. Thank you, Chair and Members.

All right. Chair Jackson, Esteemed Committee, thank you so much for your time this evening. My name is Nolan Sullivan. I have the best job in the world. I am the Yolo County Health and Human Services Director. I'm one of the 55 counties that operates the HSP Program proudly. I'm here representing my hundreds of workers that operate the program as well as about 3,000 amazing participants that receive benefits from that program every single day.

I was thinking about what I would talk about today and I think I'm going to focus mostly on number two. And what I'd like to share really is the power of the HSP Program and what it's done locally, in fact, just across the river from this building in Yolo County. Yolo County is a mid-sized county. We have 217,000 people. We have one of the fastest growing populations of all 58 counties. And now to some of the bad news.

Yolo County has an above average rate of homelessness compared to both the U.S. and California averages. The U.S. averages about 15 homeless families per 100,000 residents. California averages about 21 homeless families per 100,000 residents. Yolo County averages 22 per 100,000. So we have more homeless families per capita than most. Our preliminary point in time count for 2024 sits at 813 persons. That's up from 746 last year, which is up by ten percent, so homelessness is growing.

Not growing as much as a lot of other places in California, which we're very proud of because of some of the efforts through the HSP team. This is kind of a shocker. According to the Public Policy Institute of California--they put out a California poverty measure every couple of years--Yolo County ranks dead last. We are 19.5 percent. We have the highest poverty rate in all of California, and I'm going to explain why that's important in just a second.

Trying to essentially set the stage for what HSP does in Yolo County, I'm going to share another set of data now on point-in-time counts. So the point-in-time count is a national count across the U.S., which I'm sure most of you know. HUD puts it out, a team of volunteers and folks go out and we literally hand count--do a hand census for homeless folks. The way the point-in-time count works is you break it into two categories.

You've got individuals, you've got families, and then within individuals and families, you have unsheltered, meaning living on the streets, living in their car, living in a creek bed, and you have sheltered, meaning living in temporary housing, a shelter, or somewhere sheltered. I want to share some comparison data from the U.S., California, and Yolo County over the last couple of years, and I'll tell you why that's important. In 2018, the U.S., out of all homeless families, nine percent of U.S. families that were homeless were living unsheltered.

California was at 25 percent. So out of one out of four families in California that was homeless was living unsheltered. In Yolo County, that number was two percent. In 2019, the U.S. had a nine percent unsheltered family homelessness rate. California had a 28 percent unsheltered family homelessness rate. Yolo County had zero percent unsheltered homelessness rate in 2019. In 2020, the U.S. had a ten percent unsheltered family homelessness rate, California had a 28 percent unsheltered family homelessness rate, and Yolo County, again, had zero percent unsheltered families living in homelessness in the county.

In 2022, the last count that we have, there were 12 percent across the U.S., 19 percent in California, and we had grown to four percent. I share that data because the reason we had zero percent, two percent, or four percent is because of HSP. There is not a single family in Yolo County that will sleep outside because of this program.

And I just want to tell you unequivocally that the CalWORKs Housing Support Program, HSP, in addition to programs like Family Stabilization, the Single Allocation, and many of the other programs that are proposed to be cut, will have a devastating effect on local California families. Thank you so much for your time and listening today.

Hi. Good afternoon. Oh, yeah. I can't say good evening yet.

It don't even matter what time it is now. You know, let's not think about it.

So the state of the CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Program is like Swiss cheese. There's so many holes that it's just horrible. The Homeless Assistance Program, which is an entitlement, serves in 22-23 72,000 cases. HSP served 19,000 and the Housing Support Program served 12,000. So the majority of the program, the people are being served by the Homeless Assistance Program. The Homeless Assistance Program issues temporary homeless assistance to a hotel, motel, for 16 days. And the 16 days is issued as seven-day increments.

So you apply, you come in, you get seven days, then after seven days, you have to come back to the Welfare Office, hang around for basically an hour, two, three hours with the kids, homeless, and get your second seven days, and then after that you come back and get two more days. If you are DV victim, you get 32 days. When you get 32 days, that means 772 and then come back, get seven more days, seven more days, and two more days.

That's six trips to the Welfare Department. The 16 days that you get was something that was established in 1987. They figured it would take 16 days for folks to try to find permanent housing. Today, in 2024, is still 16 days. Things have changed immensely from the previous century to this century. Nowadays, when you go and apply for--used to be able to go to the place and they would rent to you, you would get the money, and you would move in.

Nowadays, you have to fill out an application, they check your credit, and all this other stuff. And also in order to get permanent housing, your rent has to be less than 80 percent of your income, which is a major barrier. The reason that people have to go to the Welfare Office, we tried to resolve this with benefits, CalSAWS.

In fact, they agreed in 2019 to have a system where people go online and apply, go online and submit their house search papers and get their benefits automatically rather than coming down to the Welfare Department, 772, 772. But that has not been done to this date. In fact, they got paid to do this, they agreed to do this, and they didn't do this.

And now they're asking for--I'm not sure, about ten million dollars or something like that--to do what they already got paid in the past to do. It gets a little bit worse. In LA County, if you want permanent homeless assistance, you first bring in the pay. You apply for homeless assistance, you give it to the county, to the worker. The worker sends that to what they call the CalWORKs Specialized Housing Approved Unit in El Monte.

And they take a week or two weeks to say that, 'yes, that is a rental property.' Once that is done, and meanwhile, I should remind you that permanent homeless assistance is supposed to issue by law on the date of application, but no later than the next working day because we don't want people in the streets. But LA County, you have to wait one week or two weeks. And then after this unit approved says, 'yeah, that's a rental property,' then it goes back through the district.

Then the district calls up the landlord and say, 'are you willing to--I'm from the Welfare Department--are you willing to rent to Kevin? He says he's homeless. Are you willing to do that?' And the landlord says, 'I don't think so.' And often people lose their housing that they could have gotten. On the slide five, we looked at the data and it shows, like, in September of 2023, there were 6,600 applications that were received for homeless assistance.

And at the end of the month, there was 3,000 pending. If an application is approved on date of application but no later in the next working day, that's only two days. So how can you have half the caseload pending? So it appears that they're breaking the law. In fact, my estimate is that there's nine days pending, which is illegal. So what should be done?

We would suggest that the Legislature look at the 16-day issue and maybe bring it back into the 21st century and give people a little bit more time to find a permanent place. And the same thing for the domestic violence. You get 32 days. You should get it all in one shot rather than coming back and forth like a yoyo. I think my time is up, right?

Yep.

Yeah, but you may wonder, how do we pay for this? It's very simple. The CalWORKs Program, according to the Governor, 9.4 billion is used for the CalWORKs Program. Only 4.4 is used for payment to families. 2.4 billion is used for non-CalWORKs issues. So there's a whole bunch of money, CalWORKs money that should be used for the CalWORKs program, but when they build a budget, they first of all go and rob money from the CalWORKs Program and then start adding to that. And that's unconscionable. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Finance.

Emily Marshall, Department of Finance. No additional comment.

LAO?

Sonia Schrager Russo with the Legislative Analyst Office. Our office would note that there are no proposed reductions to CalWORKs housing programs in the Governor's budget which are some of the most used services within CalWORKs. However, there are other DSS housing programs that have proposed delays. We would, however, point out for the Legislature that housing assistance is one of the most frequently provided supports through Family Stabilization.

Therefore, we recommend that the Legislature ask the Administration for information on how the family stabilization elimination that has been proposed might impact demand for these other housing and homelessness programs, both within CalWORKs and outside of the program.

Thank you very much. For Department of Social Services, can you tell me, I've heard that there's still a rate of people who are in CalWORKs that are falling into homelessness? Is that true?

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

That there's still a rate of people within CalWORKs that are still falling into homelessness even though they're part of the program. Is that true?

Yes. So the two programs that--the Housing Support Program and the Homeless Assistance Program are specifically designed to support families that are already in receipt of CalWORKs and that are experiencing either housing instability or homelessness. So that's correct, and based on our estimates, about 15 percent of CalWORKs--families receiving CalWORKs utilize the HA Program, the Homeless Assistance Program, and about four percent of families receiving CalWORKs utilize the Housing Support Program, and we've seen those percentages increase over the past few years to reach that level of demand.

So once they are receiving the housing assistance, then they become stable or are they still falling into homelessness even when they're receiving that?

So the Homeless Assistance Program is really a crisis intervention program. It's limited in scope, but it is our entitlement program. It is our one entitlement program within the housing and homelessness programs. The Housing Support Program--I should say that there is both temporary housing component to the Homeless Assistance Program as well as permanent housing, and we've seen a really large increase in utilization of both of those programs, as I was saying.

The temporary housing Homeless Assistance Program has seen a 33 percent increase over the past year, ending in fiscal year 22-23, and the permanent Homeless Assistance Program has seen 128 percent increase in utilization over that same time period, so we're seeing that the program is becoming more available and more in demand.

On the Housing Support Program, which is a much more, much deeper intervention that focuses on wraparound supports and really emphasizes that families should receive support as long as they need it until they are stably housed, that program is not an entitlement program. So we saw a really large increase in availability and expansion of the program in response to the one-time funding.

And as I was noting in my testimony, 88 percent of families that are housed through the program retain housing six months after they are placed in housing. So we're seeing that there are a lot of successes coming out of that program, which is not an entitlement program, but is much deeper in terms of the support that it provides to families in receipt of CalWORKs also experiencing homelessness.

So you're seeing better outcomes when they're a part of that program?

It provides much deeper intervention, and therefore, the outcomes are--

So are we exploring adding those components within the actual entitlement part program?

We currently don't have a proposal in the Governor's budget, but we're always interested and open to discussing improvements to either of those programs.

Panelists, what can we do to strengthen the CalWORKs Program so we don't find people falling into homelessness? What improvements do we need to make to make sure that we have a 21st century program that meets the current needs of the population, given the cost of living that now exists, right? What should we be doing?

I think along the line of questioning that we're just talking about, I think I pulled my staff together and asked kind of, what would you tell Mr. Jackson today when I go speak to him? And one of the suggestions they had is plan for longer interventions. So two, three, four years when we were talking six months, and we're not seeing families able to move on on CalWORKs grants on their own, right? And so self-sufficiency is harder and harder.

So I think planning for a longer runway is something we're looking at. I think in Yolo County, vacancy rates across the state are below two percent, one percent in many areas, so we're building inventory, we're master leasing apartment complexes, we're converting dormitory buildings, we're creating new housing opportunities out of retail space for our clients. So I think maybe encouraging or kind of creating some pockets to actually create some rental inventory, and I think most importantly with HSP is continue to maintain flexibility.

It's one of the most flexible programs that we have access to in the counties, and that's why it's so powerful and successful. I think, again, encouraging counties to be creative to house families and kind of freeing them from regulations will enable us, even without more money, to do better things. And so I think, in times of budget cuts, expanding flexibility is a way to make those dollars go further and help us serve families.

Anyone else like to add to that?

Yeah. As you can see, in 2023, there was 72,000 cases that got homeless assistance. Of them, they all got temporary homeless assistance. Of them, maybe 3,000, 4,000 got permanent. So what happened to the rest of the 68,000 after 16 days? They end up in the streets, and the Housing Support Program only could serve maybe 20,000.

I mean, I get that, but how do we solve the problem? What are you proposing?

It's better for Homeless Assistance--the Homeless Assistance Program, that should be expanded to include the services and more. That's the program that should be built up, not these side programs. You should have one program that is an entitlement, and it's built up to basically give them a number of days to find a place and then help them find a place. It should be one program that is holistic, if that makes any sense.

You know, probably from the last two years, I've been trying to get a sense of what the state of our population is.

Director Johnson, we've kind of talked about contradictory data. What is causing some of these issues? How can we get a clearer picture on the newer dynamics? Meaning are we in a new normal? Is the population still not stable enough to call it a new normal? Right. And so a part of me wants to, I wonder if there's ways that we can use data from the family stabilization program, the homeless assistance program, the housing support program.

How can we track that data to get a better picture of what people are dealing with? Is that already in the works? Is that something you'll be willing to work with us on to see how we can make that happen? I just think we got to get a better picture so we can really pinpoint. We got some great practices and some of the programs you're administering. Right. But then how do you make sure we really understand who we're trying to serve here? Any thoughts?

Great question chair, and a couple of things I want to just point out. One is our CalWORKS outcomes accountability and review, or Cal Ore is something that we created together to give a clearer picture? We are in our first phase of the implementation of that project, and in fact, that's the holistic set of outcome measures that we expect to see in terms of what families are experiencing.

We'll have that ability to set and understand at a statewide level what are the barriers or what are we seeing in terms of uptake of the various components of the cowworks array. And we'll also be able to see, and this is by county and statewide level, and we'll be setting some statewide thresholds. So then there's some context for if a county is somewhere out of bounds within those, we want to better understand that and why that is.

So that framework and structure is absolutely, by the way, again, was built with current and former participants, community based organizations, other interested parties, county human service agencies, et cetera. That will give us a clearer picture of what's going on, trends over time. It is, we have some of that data available today, but we are in the first component of that cycle.

But I think your point is well taken collectively, what are we seeing as it relates to some of these components that we have built over time? The previous administration and legislature have built these components over time. Why does housing support program exist? Because we saw that families experiencing poverty in the CalWORKS program had a greater need for housing supports. You just heard Deputy Director Azamati speak to the increased kind of utilization of some of these programs going forward.

We've also, with the expanded funding and housing support program, been able to do more on the preventative end eviction, prevention and support. So I think we are together, the administration and legislature, always looking at what are the components in the ray, what challenges are families still experiencing and how do we address those going forward.

To your question, and I do think the Cal Ore framework is part of our ability to be able to be a little more specific and really understanding that context at both the state level but also at the county specific level.

And when do you anticipate being able to really analyze that data and be able to present kind of snapshots of our populations throughout the state?

Sure. There are different phases of implementation of each of the measures, and we are already, some of that is available publicly on a dashboard today. It's a five year cycle, so we will have the totality of that cycle completed in two year. We did pause implementation of Cal Ore during the pandemic, so a little later than we had originally anticipated, but we will have that information holistically within the next year or so after we complete our first cycle.

So sometime in 2025 around there?

Yes.

Okay. Also, we are, as a committee, we have found that we might need to look at a change in state law that would allow for individual information to be shared with the homelessness information management system that protected individuals privacy. But something. So we want to be working, and we're working on trailer Bill Language to provide a CalWORKS rate of homelessness number and eventually trend data across the program and the entire case workload.

I want to just make sure that you're aware that we are instructing our subcommitee to work with your team for some technical assistance with that absolutely. Very important program. We know that when you look at any metrics, if we can't keep people housed as a state, we got a bigger problem as a state if we can't do that. So great opportunity. We'll hold this item open and I will move on to the next panel. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Issue number seven.

And then we will follow that up with public comment. Issue number seven. CalWORKS, California's application to participate in the Federal Fiscal Responsibility Act pilot.

Sure, that's fine. Thank you.

Kim Johnson, California Department of Social Services and this is a bright spot and opportunity for us in California. And as your agenda outlines, the Federal Fiscal Responsibility act of 2023 allows up to five states to participate in the pilot to promote accountability and test alternative benchmarks for work and family outcomes in lieu of the work participation rate.

And we know that singular metric of understanding how many hours a particular family is working is certainly not giving the holistic picture of all of the supports and ways in which families are supported. So we have for a very long time, both the department and other Californians been seeking alternatives to just that singular metric. And again, our Cal Ore our CaWORKS outcomes and accountability review process gives us a significant advantage in terms of the application to this particular opportunity.

So we're really grateful to be in that space.

And again, I would just say kind of our theory of change in how we came to create the array of performance measures is really making sure we're mindful about not just the short term outcomes that we're having, family and children having their basic needs met, increased attendance and activities, participant satisfaction with the program, but also looking at medium term outcomes, improved well being, improved goal achievement, degree and certificate, achievement barrier mitigation, increased employment and improved wages to the long term.

To your points at the top of the hearing, how are we actually reducing intergenerational poverty? What does that persistent employment with increases wage look like over time to earlier panelists who spoke to the need not just for any job, but jobs that provide that career pathway and economic mobility opportunity. So we really did seek the time to craft a much more holistic picture of what we want to support families experiencing poverty in California. Your agenda on pages 48 and 49 outline the timeline for application.

So we are looking to receive from the Federal Government the application components very shortly. We will then respond to that application with our proposal, and we should know late summer in terms of selection of counties. Again, one of the questions in the agenda pointed to what do the proposed reductions, how does that intersect with our ability to be successful in the pilot?

Certainly, as we've already had the conversation today, there are changes in terms of limitations of services being provided with the proposed reductions, but would say that California does have and will continue to have the most comprehensive array of services in its TANF program than any other state in the nation. So again, we're looking forward to this opportunity and really also appreciate the tremendous engagement and involvement from all who were looking at what alternatives can we seek and being really ready to apply for this federal opportunity.

Hi, I'm Briana. Briana Burks. I am a parent. I'm a leader at Parent Voices Contra Costa. I'm a mama for De Niro, 16, Ameliana, 11, Derek Jr. 10, and my youngest, Jacob, is five. I'm here today to talk about my experience with CalWORKS. I've been on and off CalWORKS since I was 17 years old and pregnant with De Niro. I was getting CalWORKS and was only getting the cash aid. I was never offered childcare, not once.

I didn't even know I can get childcare on CalWORKS. Until recently, no one has ever asked me my career goals. The first time I got off CalWORKS, it was after a friend of mine suggested that we both stopped the welfare to work program so we could just go get our CNA license. I asked my worker if I could get help with paying with my CNA license, and at the time, the worker told me no, that they were only allowed to pay for books. Yeah.

Okay. So I found a job. I got a security guard job, and again, by myself. I pay for the guard card with no help from the county, saved up the money, and put myself through school. I became a CNA, and it was good for me. I was raised with my grandparents. Me and my siblings were raised with our grandparents. My father died when I was young, when I was a baby, and we were raised with my great grandmother and our grandparents.

And so I always felt the need that I wanted to be a caretaker the next few. Oh, and then I got my CNA license. Sorry. I'm nervous. I got my CNA license.

Take your time. This is your time. Okay. All right. Turn off the alarm. I don't want you passing out on me. All right. Take your time. You okay?

Okay. So, I worked as a CNA for a few years. When I got pregnant with my daughter, I took maternity leave, and when that was over, I went back to work for a little while, and shortly, I became pregnant with my other son, junior. So for the next few years, I didn't work so I could stay home with them. That's when I got back on CalWORKS. Those next few years, I got sanctioned for all sorts of things.

I've been sanctioned for not having up to date immutation records. I've learned over the years never to lose that yellow immutation card, because if you do, you'll get sanctioned. I got sanctioned for not having one of my kids birth certificates on file. Mind you, at the time, I'm just getting out the hospital after giving birth with postpartum depression. I got sanctioned for not turning in check stubs.

Meanwhile, I find out that you can see all my check stubs in the systems anyway, sometimes I'm not even sure why I got sanctioned. It's stressful to be sanctioned. You sanctioned me $300 for not bringing in a piece of paperwork, and now I'm short $300 on my rent and my car payment. How am I going to get the money when I'm already asking you for help.

Now I got to borrow $300 from someone or do something that I don't want to do for $300 just to make ends meet. It messes with your livelihood. In your mind. It drives you crazy. It's stressful. This month, I have zero in food stamps left. One pack of meat in the freezer. Literally, the money goes by fast. At 1.0 in time, I was trying to apply for CalWORKS, and the worker called me from a blocked number.

My daughter at the time was six or seven years old, and she picked up the phone in a joking voice and said. She lowered her voice and was like, hello. Sounded like a man. So the worker thought it was a man. She thought it was my kid's dad and accused me of lying. And then she said she was going to deny me. So I told her she can keep the money and not to call my phone back again.

Most recently, I've been trying to get help paying my rent because I fell behind. I asked for housing, support, got denied. You have to literally be on the chopping block, literally this close to getting kicked out before they help you. But sometimes when you need help, you can't get a hold of someone if they're doing me like this. How many other families are they doing like this? I have called and called, and sometimes I don't get a call back for weeks.

Now that I'm part of Parent Voices and have started meeting people and learning more about the system, I know what to do. I have my sister with me. Last time I called and she politely said, excuse me, but we heard from Kim Johnson. Kim Johnson. That you're supposed to help when families need help because they fell behind on their rent. So the worker put me on hold and said, let me go speak to my supervisor. Literally the next day. I'm sorry. Yeah, put me on hold.

The very next day, I got a call back from the worker at the county able to help pay with my pay with my back rent from January, February, and March. When I got the call, I literally fell to my knees. Me and my kids, we just got done being homeless. We were moving from house to house. My kids got split up. We're moving around everywhere. It did a lot to me and them.

My oldest has alopecia, and I'm trying not to put him in any more stressful situations as it is. And now that we're all back together, his hair, his eyelashes, his eyebrows. He has a full head of hair now. So I'm very happy about that. On one hand, I'm sorry, I refused to go back to homelessness. When they told me they were going to pay those three months, I cried. I even called my worker.

Even though he'd been putting me off and putting me off for so long, I still called him and left a message just to tell him thankful. And I'm very grateful for their help. On one hand, I am glad that I got the help, but it sucks that the welfare office has these programs for needy families, but they don't want to offer it to you. You got to know somebody to get something, and that's not right. Nobody taught us how to do this.

Nobody is here holding our hands. We're doing this on our own. My life would have been different in the beginning when I first got cowworks. If they had offered me help with my education, with my childcare, with clothes for me and my son, perhaps I would be a registered nurse by now and made my childhood dreams come true. Instead of people having to find out about these programs on their own.

I feel like as workers, they need to open these doors for us, have different options for career paths. And I'm understanding, too. I know that the workers have a lot on their plate, but they look at me like I'm trying to cheat the system and get extra money out of them. I don't want to be here. I need to be here to help my kids. I want an education. I want a better job. I want a better career. But they don't help you do that.

I have four kids. One of them might need this help one day. Our future generations, our grandkids, somebody else down the line is going to need help. And I just want it to be easier for them. We need to stop this so our future won't be discouraged. So our future won't be discouraged. When it's time to ask for help, it's easy to steal, it's easy to rob, it's easy to sell drugs.

But when it's time to get on their feet and do it the right way, they don't want to help. Now, when they get a felony and when they get misdemeanors because nobody was there to help them, you have no trouble locking them up and telling them that they're the problem. That needs to end today. That's why I'm here.

We need to defend these programs against cuts, get rid of the unnecessary sanctions, and reimagine cowworks into a program that opens doors to help us, to get us to where we need to go. Thank you.

Well done. Well done. Next.

That's me. Eileen Cubanski with the California Welfare Directors Association, and I'm really bummed to have to follow that. But I will say that I think that story.

Just a minute. Can the people in the audience keep it down, please? We're hearing too much noise back there.

That story illustrates the exciting opportunity to echo Director Johnson's comments behind this pilot. Culture changes really hard, and for decades we've had a system that's been very compliance oriented, very much focused on the rules, and that's been the training that we've kind of hammered into our county workers. And we embarked at CWDA with our county human services agencies on CalWORKS 2.0. It's this very lame name, but it is an effort to refocus the program in a family centered way and supporting families in their goals.

And we embarked with the Department of Social Services on Cal Ore. To really look at ways we can strengthen and the measures of the program beyond the work participation rate because that being the sole measure of the program, it's rooted in racist, sexist history centered on the notion that low income people, women of color, need to be punished to go and find a job and take care of their families.

The opportunity to move away from that as the sole measure of success in this program is really exciting. And that's what this pilot provides us the opportunity to do. We're looking forward to building on the Cal Ore work that we're doing and anticipating that's going to be a core critical part of our application and think that that really gives us an important edge. We're preparing for that second cycle of Cal Ore, focusing on lessons learned, trying to analyze gaps in services.

How can we improve both our system, but how we're accountable in that system. I do have to note that single allocation reductions could potentially jeopardize our ability to kind of perform to our best in the Cal Ore program. And certainly those cuts are going to compound whatever service gaps we identify, filling those. But we think that there's opportunity too, even in the absence of the pilot, and so hope that we will use that pilot opportunity to test these things. And again, we could do these anyway.

But the pilot, I think, and the freeing from the WPR really provides that opportunity. We think permanent elimination of the WPR is ultimately going to be core to changing the culture and improving the program. And just phasing it out is not going to cut it over the long term. We'd like to see additional supports and incentives to enhance engagement and celebrate family success is really important. We shouldn't undersell incentives for participants in the program, and we've got lots of ideas for those.

We think expanding, not eliminating, family stabilization services is going to be critically important to ensure that families receive that whole range of crisis services and supports and ongoing services and supports. And we've already heard about ESE and obviously not eliminating that program, how it fills gaps in training and skills, identifying career interests and supporting families parents in pursuing those goals is going to be really important.

So I'll conclude, but just agree that this pilot provides some exciting opportunities, and we're looking forward to testing out as much as we can while we have this opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you, chair and Members and staff, Andrew Cheyne, he/him, with Grace and Poverty California. Just to very briefly recap, we heard from the previous panels that the cuts actually will threaten lives, that they will raise costs eight to one and make the budget problem worse, and they will undermine the program and the pilots by degrading the prevention power of CalWORKS and the downstream effects of deeper child poverty, child welfare involvement, homelessness and lost potential.

And with the right changes, that CalWORKS is a two generational intervention helping parents succeed and build the life they want for their children. So forgive the abrupt transition, but we share the excitement about the potential of the governor's proposal to pursue the pilots. This is a generational opportunity. It's really hard to overstate that. This is the first time since 1996, since the new gingrich at the federal level and the Pete Wilson Institution of CalWORKS in California to formally set aside the work participation rate.

This means, for example, that we can recognize the unpaid caregiving work that you spoke to when you had to leave the program that is normally excluded under the federal rules. We have a chance for national leadership to drive the Tanner reform conversation in Washington, and no reason not to take full advantage of this opportunity. So we've been vocal with stakeholders in Washington, DC, celebrating the governor's plan and making sure everyone knows of California's interest.

And we share the view that Cal Ore and 20 do make us well positioned. I saw that firsthand at a national conference of the TANF administrators, where the department is invited to present on Cal Ore to the rest of the state agencies. But we cannot underscore enough that the state cannot apply on Cal Ore and 2.0 alone. If we do just that, we're not piloting anything and we don't want to show the flaws of the program we have today. And these cuts are allowed to happen.

We don't want to show in five years that we've taken a step backwards. Right. So one of the measures, not to be cheeky about it, one of the measures that they're going to be developing is family stability and well being. And yet we're talking about reducing family stabilization funding to zero. So what are the changes that we should be building on the Janten proposal?

First, to stop punishing families, to pursue the federal pilots by making policy changes, by going to the federal minimum requirements on the welfare to work sanction. You've heard that it's often paperwork that is the cause of the sanction or it's often a missed appointment. We have things like fails to, we have language well beyond what we're required to under federal law. And again, we're talking about a program where nearly two thirds of adults, I think it's 63%, lack a high school diploma.

So the need for a supportive environment I think is evident. Yet today, nearly 70,000 children are in a household experiencing sanction, nearly 40% of whom are in long term sanction, meaning a year or more. And to put this in dollars and cents, and this is now referring to the chart you're seeing, this is a 20% loss in income. We've heard extensively today the benefit of having a guaranteed income. This is a guaranteed income that is being taken away through the sanction policy.

So I don't need to reiterate that, but just to really underscore the point that Eileen was making, that California, we could be doing these changes already. If you look at that chart, you can see how many states have moved ahead with these policies. But the pilot really just takes away any reason to not take action on this. And we should be making these, use this opportunity to test this policy.

Second, to place families at the center of the program and trust black and brown moms as best positioned, determine their pathway out of success. I can't put that any better than Briana already did, but we need to make sure parents know that what their opportunities are, that they can self determine their goals and get rid of the artificial barriers around hours, requirements, restrictions on activities, all of these things that are putting barriers in folks way. Third, improving access to supportive services.

Again, you heard about we still have issues accessing care. We've heard from other moms as well that stage one from day one is on the books, but we're still seeing some parents having to watch each other's children at the lobby in the community colleges because they're not getting childcare. And then finally, we agree to permanently repeal the WPR penalty, pass through and put real teeth into what began with CalWORKS 20, but make that real for every family. As we heard, we have that work to do.

So the message from families as well as the formal evaluations is clear. Families need cash without strings and stigma, in particular that providing basic income improves employment, as we heard many hours ago from Carrie Miller from Los Angeles County. But she put that so well, and families need services to go along with cash. CalWORKS is that basic income program with supportive services that can save lives and let parents pursue their dreams. If we reimagine it, we have the solutions in hand.

So in closing, we respectfully ask to work with you and with the administration on trailer bill language to establish goals and parameters in lines with these reforms through the pilot to reimagine a successful program pilot and to reject the cuts which would undermine it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Department of Finance?

Emily Marshall Department of Finance nothing further to add.

LAO?

Sonia Schrager Russo with the Legislative Analyst Office. As has been previously mentioned, this pilot is set to begin in October of the budget year for states that are selected to participate, and while we do anticipate that additional information will become available in the coming months, there are many questions that still remain about the pilot as not much information has been provided by the Federal Government at this time.

Since the administration has indicated an intent to apply for the pilot, it will be important for the legislature to consider the Governor's Budget proposals for CalWORKS within the context of the state's application and potential participation in the pilot, and to consider pilot participation with an eye towards these unknown elements. Therefore, we recommend that the legislature consider the potential trade offs of pilot participation, such as the time and effort that participating may entail, versus the potential short and long term benefits for California.

The pilot does seem aligned with the recent legislative interest in expanding the goals of the CalWORKS program and seems to be an opportunity to shift some of the state's focus towards other desired outcome measures or goals within the CalWORKS program. It may also present an opportunity to demonstrate whether alternative measures to the work participation rate or WPR might be better measures of success for state TANF programs, which could be beneficial to California after the pilot.

If the Federal Government decides to introduce more comprehensive performance measures in addition to the WPR or as an alternative to the WPR, we recommend that the legislature also consider how the Governor's Budget proposed reductions, especially those to family stabilization, intensive case management, and subsidized employment that we've talked about thus far, might impact our application and potential performance in the pilot.

These reductions may limit the types of programs, services and outcomes that California can highlight in its pilot application and if selected to participate, how California might perform along these measures. However, without comprehensive outcome information on these programs, it is difficult to predict how significantly the proposals might impact our application and our potential performance if selected to participate.

Thank you all for that. Obviously, there seems to be more information. I think we're all going to need to be able to kind of think about, number one, the application.

How can we as the legislature be supportive in that and making sure that even know, particularly starting with our past chair, Dr. Arambula, the idea of how we reimagined how CaWORKS should work, making sure that we have a system that meets the needs not of past centuries, but this century in terms of the population's current needs.

This committee would like to kind of have more in depth conversations about this and to see know get a better understanding of what you anticipate in putting in the application, making sure there seems to be some concerns addressed by LAO and some stakeholders as well. I would hate to have this application go forward, and we need everyone excited about this baby, right. And so want to make sure that we work together on that, whether it requires trailer bill language or not.

I think that's something we should continue to discuss. You know us, we love our trailer bill language, but at the end of the day, we want to make sure that we win and most importantly, that our families win out of this. Right. And most importantly, also, let's just face the reality. We want something to be sustainable and something that the next governor doesn't feel they're going to need to change. Right? I mean, we're in a transition period in a way.

And how do we set up something that's sustainable that can survive the test of time? And so our subcommitee staff will be reaching out to you, we'll be reaching out to LAO as well, to see how we can think about how we can do this process in a way that we can be supportive of one another and making sure that we get this right and making sure everyone feels heard along the process. Is that amenable to you all? CWA?

Absolutely.

What? Did I say CWA?

No, I thought you said CWA.

What is CWA? Is that an old airline? Anyway, you know who you are.

I do.

I know who we are.

Okay. Thank you all very much for this panel. Really appreciate it. We're going to ask the sergeants to prepare for public comment again. We're going to ask parents, families and clients to come up first, and then after that, advocates and lobbyists can come up after that. Please just state your name and affiliation, please.

And again, we're going to say two minutes. Two minutes. Two minutes. Who's up first? I need everyone to keep it down, please. We're going to start public comment.

Okay. Hello, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Hello, my name is Salam Jisar. I'm a member of Parent Voices. I live with my eight years old son and six years old daughter in San Francisco. I'm here today to reject the proposed double cuts to the CalWORKS program. I'm very lucky to live in a great country. Where I was before, we don't get none off from government assistance. However, the cost of living here in our city is too high. I also get CalWORKS and training from Welfare to work like ASL classes, basic computer skills.

And that is a great opportunity for mother like me, who has language barriers and find a good pay job. I remember before I discovered about CalWORKS, I struggled to put food on the table and pay rent. Still, my struggle got worse after COVID. Grocery is too high. Everything is expensive. Without CalWORKS, I wouldn't and couldn't have done it. My family is struggling.

It's important that you work with the governor so the final budget does not eliminate and subsidize employment from CalWORKS and the Family Stabilization Fund. Thank you for your time and support.

Thank you very much. Next up, next up. Please state your name. Next up. Come on up.

This is my son.

Hello. My name is Zachary Chep. I am eight years old. I'm here to support my mom. Governor, don't cut, CalWORKS. It helps my mom and my sister-in-law. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

My name is Abigail and I'm supporting my mom for we can have more money for our house can be accepted.

Thank you, Abigail. Next up.

Hello, my name is Elia Fernandez and I'm here to tell my daughter's story. My name is Flora Fernandez. I'm a mother of four kids and I'm in school. She's currently studying to be a doctor. She has one more year to go and we're proud of her. But she needs to CalWORKS help her because she has four kids, three of them with disabilities and one with more disability with autism. And she wants to say that, please better the services for automatic phone calls on CalWORKS.

Nobody ever answers. It's only machines. And it takes hours that you stay in there waiting for somebody to answer. They don't answer at all. They need a better service. And also, please reject the proposal double cuts and CalWORKS with the Governor to pass a budget that protects families. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

My name is Diego, and I'm seven years old. I'm here with my mom and sister to tell you, don't break CalWORKS.

Thank you. No. Wake her up. It's time to testify.

Yeah, it's fine. Hi, my name is Yvonne Batadano. I speak Spanish. [Testimony in Spanish]

Gracias. Next up.

I speak Spanish. [Testimony in Spanish]

Gracias.

Hello. My name is Monina Balacas, and I am a parent leader here also for Parent Voices. I am also a former family advocate for San Francisco Head Start, which is a comprehensive early childhood education with health, nutrition, parent involvement services to low income, underprivileged children and families. I am here today to reject the proposed double cuts to the CalWORKS program. We cannot balance the budget on the backs of poor families and children.

It is important that you work with the Governor so that the final budget does not eliminate program like family stabilization and subsidized employment from CalWORKS. So please, please keep the Family Stabilization Fund Program. That would help family a lot. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Hi. Good afternoon, Assembly Members. My name is Maria Lustore. I've been organizer Parent Voices for the last 30 years, and I almost didn't make it back this afternoon because my bag went through the thing and the guy said, oh, there's an elephant in your bag. And I said, oh, my God, what is it? So they found the elephant, but after finding the elephant, they decided they want to check my bag some more.

Well, anyways, to make a long story short, I'm here, but I feel like poverty shouldn't be a value judgment on families. And what I went through up there, I was gaslighted and all that. And it's all recorded. I felt what many of our CalWORKS families feel when they go to the welfare office and they're not being helped. And I have a script, I'm going out of it because I feel like we are treated as less worthy of getting the assistance.

This state lost $70 billion in corporate tax credit this year. CalWORKS is only about 10% of that funding. I think the solution we need to find to fully fund CalWORKS and not cut it is right there. We need to reconsider the funding. And of course, I was a parent in CalWORKS, too.

I came to this country 30 years ago dreaming of being a hotshot attorney here, because I did get my law degree before I came here, but I had children, and that put a place a pause on all my dreams and CalWORKS. I became a single parent with two kids, and CalWORKS was the only help I got. So I stayed in the shelter, and after saving enough money, I was able to move to an apartment, and we got moving assistance.

We were given a voucher to buy pre loved furniture and a brand new futon. And that's what family stabilization does. So for many families, this help is life saving, and so we cannot cut that. So we appeal. We appreciate your strong empathy, and we heard it over and over today, and we appeal to the governor's sense of compassion to reject or reverse his funding proposal to cut and reverse these two double cuts to CalWORKS. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next.

Hello. My name is Letricia Randolph, and I am a parent leader with Parent Voices. I live in Contra Costa, and I have been raising family member children for the last 20 years. I do want to say that I'm thankful for the program, but it has been a struggle. I will say that I believe it is the departments that we're having a problem with. Like they said, no one ever answers. It's very strenuous. They make you come back and forth.

Sometimes they make it personal, like they're taking it out of their personal bank account to give you assistance, and they make it really hard. Me and my kids have been displaced more times than we can count. The money that they do give for the children, it isn't enough to get by. I am considered a non-needy relative, so the money is actually for the children. So I use my portion as well to do what I need to do to make ends meet.

But at the same time, the portion that they're giving me, it really isn't enough. And like I stated before, the Department, I don't know if they're implementing their own policy or making it up as they go. I have been fortunate enough to get some workers that have given me inside information as far as the resources that is available to me, and each worker should give that to you willingly. It is there for you when you're applying.

It is supposed to be for you and the child, but it is not given on a regular basis. I just have been fortunate to get workers that was willing to give me that information for me to get the resources that I need. So I am here today to reject the proposed double cuts to the CalWORKS program. We cannot balance the budget on the backs of poor families and children. It is important that you work with the Governor so that the final budget does not eliminate programs like Family Stabilization and subsidized employment from CalWORKS. Thank you.

Next up.

Hi, my name is Lache. I am a parent leader with Parent Voices, Contra Costa County. This is my six year old, June. I have an 18 month old son. And what I want to say is, no, they don't really offer the Family Stabilization Program, but to the ones that they do offer it to, it's changing lives. It's saving lives.

It's not just a program that you guys are given to somebody to just help them get by for a month, like the people that are getting it and are using it the right way is changing lives. So before you cut that program, think about that, and if the workers are offering it the right way that they should be giving it, the people are going to get off. They don't have to stay on it forever.

But when they are not getting these programs, that's why they stay on it forever, because what's next for them? They have nothing next to do. So we are asking that you don't cut these programs and we cannot balance the budgets on the backs of families and poor people. It is important that you work with the Governor so that the final budget does not eliminate programs like Family Stabilization and subsidized employment for CalWORKS. Thank you.

Thank you.

What do you want to say?

Hi.

Hi. What's your name?

June. June.

June, all right. Good to see you, June.

Why do you love the program? What do you get to do extra from the program? What do kids get to do extra if their parents get on the program? What's fun after school that you love to do?

Coloring.

What else? And playing and gymnastics and swimming. And they get to do things that kids don't normally get to do from the places that we come from.

All of that? You get to do all that? How do I get into the program? Man, I didn't get to do that stuff.

Hi, Chair, Members. Jennifer Greppy. I was able to testify earlier about subsidized employment, but I'm the Director of Parent Policy with Parent Voices California, and we brought 38 parents here today with all their kids. You can hear them in the hall. Some of them had to leave. And they have their stories here that I want to make sure that you get. So we'll share those with you. And we also had 150 plus people write letters to the Governor to share why CalWORKS is so critical to their families.

And they left personal statements in there about what these cuts would mean to their family. And so while we understand that the Legislature has a role in this, we know that the Governor really needs to listen and know that families, the burden is just too great. We cannot continue to balance the budget on their backs. And the reality is they did not create this budget deficit, and we cannot look to them to solve this budget deficit. And we have big corporations making record profits, and it's time that we look to those people to pay their fair share. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Guillermo Metelin Bock. I'm the Director for the Dream Center at Kelsey Monterey Bay. The Dream Center provides free resources to undocumented students and students of mixed status families. One of the resource that has been instrumental at our campus is the free immigration legal services. It provides free legal services to students, faculty, and staff, families, and alumni up to two years from graduation.

When we talk about the student population that has been traditionally underserved and higher education is undocumented students. And one of the budget proposals from Governor Newsom is to cut back this resource from 7 million to 1.8 million. When we talk about how is it that we can continue to support our students in higher education, to stay in college and focus on graduating is by adding more resources, not taking resources away.

I have witnessed firsthand what it is for students to benefit from this resource when it comes to renewing the DAC applications in order to be able to work on campus, which helps them graduate, whether they're working on their bachelor's degree, on their master's degree, on credential, you name it. The resource in itself has not only helped students but also staff as well that have needed legal representations for perhaps themselves or family members. Today I'm here representing my student that I serve and asking for the project to remain fully funded. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up.

Good evening, my name is Julie Mitchell, Legal Director at CARECEN in the Central American Resource Center of California. I'm here to urge the Legislature to protect and preserve all immigration service funding, including CSU and TPS funding. The state has spent the last five years investing in infrastructure building for the CSU project. A drastic cut like this threatens to completely dismantle an extremely successful program that has served over 11,000 CSU immigrant students and employees through legal services and over 20,000 through legal education services.

We maintain a waitlist for most campuses we serve. The proposed almost 75% cut in funding will make those services grossly inadequate to the demonstrated need. A 75% cut in funding means less than $79,000 per each of the 23 CSU campuses. That is less than one legal staff per campus. Failure to fully restore and protect this program means that over 10,000 students and families at CSU campuses that need and rely on these services will not get them. Thank you. And I urge the Committee to reject the governor's proposal to cut immigration legal services and fully restore this funding. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Maria Martinez, and I'm a graduate student at Stanislaus State. I'm currently working on getting my master's in social work, and as an undocumented student, well, I'm here in support for the CSU immigration and legal services. As an undocumented student, I have used the services, and it has really benefited me and impacted my life in a very positive way.

I have been able to renew my DACA multiple times. Therefore, I've been able to pursue and have the confidence to continue with my higher education, as well as provide for my family. So I do see this program as something that is crucial for the students and CSUs to continue pursuing their higher education and also helping the families. As you heard before, this program really not just benefits the students, but also the staff members, the faculty, and also our family members. So, again, I feel like it's very important to continue having this program in our CSUs. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Paulette Hernandez, and I am here also in support for the CSU Immigration Legal Services. I have been a beneficiary of the program, and one of the key aspects that it has helped me, I am a mom of two, and it has helped me in finding a path for me to become a resident and hopefully a citizen in the past.

But before I had this path, I was always afraid of being deported. And so leaving my children behind who are citizens for me, is something that often comes with an undocumented status the uncertainty that we face. And cutting up these programs, it would be very difficult for our families to get access to free immigration and legal services on our areas. So, for example, I come from Turlock. In that area, we have very limited services available that are either pro Bono or that even trusted. And these services have been amazing for our communities, and it would definitely have a big impact if we reduce the amount of services we can provide. Thank you.

Hello. I'm kind of nervous. Sorry. My name is Vivian Jacqueline Palayo. I stand before you not only as a DACA recipient of nine years, but also as a hard working mother to a one year old and a student who has overcome and continues to face countless barriers placed upon our undocumented community.

My journey is a testament to the immense support provided through the CSU Immigrant Legal Services Project. This project has changed my life by opening doors to opportunities I once deemed impossible. Today, I urge you to reconsider any proposals to cut funds to this vital project. Let's stand together to allow this project to continue being a beacon of hope and justice for thousands of students like myself. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Hello. My name is Isala Nuno Garcia. I am a recent graduate of San Jose State University. I'm here today to advocate against the budget cuts, the significant budget cuts might I add, to the CSU immigrant legal services project. Personally, this project has transformed my life, as it likely did to the almost 7,200 individuals who have so far been served full legal representation through this.

Without this project, I personally would have never found out I was eligible for a very specific program that leads to a legal pathway to citizenship from a simple DACA renewal consultation that arose from, much less have the help to complete it all in the span of five weeks before I aged out on my 21st birthday. It would truly be a disservice to students like me who could easily fall through the cracks and lose access to a fully funded immigration legal project like this one. Thank you so much.

Next up.

Hi, I am Maria Oregel. I am a social work graduate student at Stanislaus State. I am here to advocate on behalf of CSU Immigration Legal Services. With this program, I myself was able to renew DACA continuously for many years and receive financial support. Additionally, as a graduate student, I'm required to do a graduate project. So I was able to apply for advanced parole to conduct international social work in Accra, Ghana, located in eastern Africa.

So with this program, I encourage you to support this program because it has benefited many underrepresented communities that include undocumented students and documented students like myself. Thank you so much.

What year are you in?

I'm on my last one. I'm graduating.

Oh, you didn't think you could make it, huh?

Yes. Thank you so much for your time.

Yeah.

Hi there. My name is Kristella Gonzalez. And first and foremost I want to thank the state of California for their investment in dreamers like myself. And I am a beneficiary of these legal services. I am a former undocumented student who would not be here without these immigrant legal services mainly because we can't afford private attorneys. These services help me and my parents obtain legal status after 27 years. I immediately joined the California National Guard and served this great state during COVID and the wildfire state missions.

Today I stand before you, a proud Californian and an immigration attorney, providing the same legal services that are crucial for the continued growth of California. I hope California continues to fully fund CSU Legal Services. Because in doing so, you are investing in the future of California. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Hard to follow that. My name is Elliot Martin Jimenez. I work with ILD, one of the orgs that works with the CSU Immigration Legal Services. And I've seen how many thousands of people get benefited from the program. I myself have benefited and my family. This touches not only the students, but faculty, staff, and family members. So it's an investment in California and making sure that people have access to quality legal services. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Hi, my name is Carlos Marin Jimenez. I also work for ILD and I'm just here to support the California State University Legal Defense Services and against the budget cuts. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Hello, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Dylan McCabe and I'm speaking on behalf of Yolo Food Bank. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we had a 20% increase in demand at our distributions. And now in 2024, that number is the same.

This is coupled with pandemic era federal aid ending. Grocers and other food suppliers are tightening up their inventory. So we're purchasing twice as much food as we were two years ago. And food prices are also more expensive than ever. And so these reasons are why we really need your help. So I urge you to please support anti-poverty and anti-hunger investments, including food bank requests for disaster food and Cal Food. And also to please reject cuts to CalWORKS. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next up.

Good evening, Chair Jackson and Committee. My name is Adro from United Way, California Capital Region. We have a five county region that we support within the Sacramento Capital Region. And I'm commenting on item two, which is guaranteed income and homelessness prevention, and really want to identify that we have four cohorts of guaranteed income that we've launched over the years. Each of them are professionally evaluated, and we have a lot of rich data that makes a connection between homelessness prevention and guaranteed income.

Because of the financial empowerment tools we've invested in direct subsidies for years, it's time that we invest into our own families. In our fourth cohort, a very conservative sack County Board of Supervisors just approved a cohort that will benefit black and indigenous families, $725 a month for a year. And so want to urge your support for guaranteed income and directly investing into our families. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Hello, everyone. My name is Christina Hart. Please be a supporter, ally, friend, and advocate to people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. I have a developmental disability called autism. Whenever budget cuts happen, please do not take away the money for people with disabilities. Our special day programs and the services that help people with disabilities are vital. We need that money to keep programs in place so people with disabilities can thrive and grow. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Good evening. My name is Alison Pennington. I'm a managing attorney, and I'm here to speak about the cuts, potential cuts, to the CSU Immigrant Legal Services Program. As a managing attorney, we have a front row seat to the impact of the program on our clients. Because we're in the CSU campuses in the Central Valley and the Central Coast, where there is a dearth of legal services, many of our clients have never met with an attorney before.

When they then meet with us, they find out they're eligible for a work permit. They find out they're on a path to getting a green card or on a path to citizenship. It completely changes their lives. They stay in school. They dream bigger. They're able to start families and start seriously thinking about their futures. So it's an excellent return on the investment, and we strongly urge you not to cut the program. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up.

Hello. My name is Siobhan Waldron. I live in Vacaville. I also am a managing attorney and co-founder at Immigrant Legal Defense like my colleague Alison. We're one of the nonprofits that provides the immigration legal services at the CSU campuses. We serve nine different campuses, our specific organization.

And while we do serve some campuses that are in traditionally underserved areas, we also do serve San Francisco State and San Jose State, areas where people think there's attorneys everywhere and everyone here can access an attorney and that's just not true. Even in urban areas where there are a lot of lawyers, students and their families still don't have access to those attorneys. So many people we meet for the first time are able to secure legal services.

And we don't just serve the students, we serve staff, faculty, families, and entire communities. We've been working for five years to build robust infrastructure in communities to provide these services and to these staggering proposed cuts would drastically reduce services and really take away from the five years of hard work that have gone into serving the communities. So for that reason, we do ask that you reject the proposed staggering cuts and please fully fund the California State University Immigration Legal Services Program. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Thank you. Mark Lowry, representing the Orange County Food Bank, speaking on support of the Cal Food program. The California Department of Social Services provides allocations to food banks that can only be used for the purchase of California produced agricultural goods. One of the great assets in California is that our California Association of Food Banks has an incredibly effective farmers to families program that allows us to purchase products at a very low per pound price. But when you're purchasing millions of pounds of food, the cost is cumulative.

So one of the tensions that food banks experience is when we have less Cal Food money, we have to purchase the least expensive items. So we'll purchase summer squash. When we have more money, we can access California produced eggs and milk and chicken. So we urge support for Cal Food funding so we can provide a more comprehensive menu to vulnerable Californians.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. Monica Miller, representing the National Council of Jewish Women, Los Angeles. First and foremost, I want to echo the comments of the Parent Voices and really appreciate that they were willing to come here to Sacramento today and talk about their lived experiences. That's so critical and that we support them as they're trying to lift themselves out of poverty. Secondly, I want to talk about the guaranteed income program specifically. Thank you so much for your comments that you made.

We definitely look forward to seeing the trailer bill language that you had discussed. We are currently co-sponsoring with Grace in Childhood Poverty of California, AB 2263 to do just what you had discussed in terms of scaling up the program, looking statewide, making it more sustainable, making it long term, those long term investments. We are currently one of the recipients of the seven pilot program. So we're one of seven.

Looking forward to continuing to working with CDSS and ensuring that hopefully they are able to get the program extension through 2028 and look forward to working with you and your staff. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next up.

Good evening. Sorry, honorable. I had this right. Honorable Chair, Dr. Jack. There we go. No, I was so wrong.

Say it again.

No. Okay. We're going all over. Good evening, Honorable Chair, Dr. Jackson. There we go. Clifton Wilson, Michelle Yoder, Anthony Schmelzer, Lange. On behalf of the counties of Kern, Sonoma, and Tulare, in strong opposition to the proposed CalWORKS cuts. Thank you.

Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you for being here. Next up.

Hi there. Sam Wilkinson with Grace and Child Poverty in California. I'm here to share some of our priorities. We want to echo and second everything that was lifted up by the Parent Voices families.

And then in regards to Calfresh and guaranteed income, we'd like to lift up that we have four priorities to ensure on time implementation of the Calfresh minimum nutrition benefit pilot to expand food for all to all Californians, and then in regards to guaranteed income, to ensure CDSS's request to extend the guaranteed income pilot program authority through 2028. And then, as Monica Miller mentioned, to fund AB 2263 to chart the state's course from guaranteed income to pilots to a permanent statewide program. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up.

Good evening, Chair Dr. Jackson and Members of the Subcommitee. My name is Ezer Pemantuan. I'm here representing Alameda County Community Food Bank, based in Oakland. Right now, around one in four Alameda County residents are either experiencing food insecurity or at risk of experiencing food insecurity. And in response, the food bank is currently distributing around 1 million pounds of food every single week to try to meet this need.

And so today Alameda County Community Food Bank would like to be on the record in opposition to the CalWORKS double cut. And we'd also like to be on the record in support of the food bank requests for disaster food and Cal Food to support California's food banks, on time implementation of the CF minimum nutrition benefit pilot administrative needs for the summer EBT implementation, expanding the California Food Assistance program benefits to all, regardless of their age or immigration status, and implementing the program without delay, not allowing the Cal Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program to be cut, building on the tan of pilots to reimagine CalWORKS. And finally, we support the guaranteed Income pilot project extension and planning for the statewide guaranteed income program. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Next up.

Good evening. My name is Savannah Jorgensen with the Lutheran Office of Public Policy California. We are a member of the End Child Poverty Coalition. Our office represents the coordinated witness of hundreds of congregations across the state in the pursuit of a sufficient sustainable livelihood for all.

We join and line our comments with other organizations' testimony today and calling on the Legislature fund a state budget that stops the double cut to the safety net reserve and life saving CalWORKS services expands food for all to all Californians and protects all programs providing critical services to California's most vulnerable communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

It'll never do what you want.

That's close enough. Good evening, Dr. Jackson. To the chair, to the Members of Committee who've stuck around this far. I know it's been a long day. I really appreciate your time, as do I know that everyone behind me appreciates your time. My name is Adhemir Romero. I'm a managing attorney at Immigrant Legal Defense. I'm going to be speaking on behalf of the CSU Immigration Legal Services project and addressing the proposed cuts to that project.

Our office is one of the four offices that have been charged with representing the 23 CSU campuses from San Diego all the way up to Humboldt. This project has created an infrastructure for free legal representation in the Immigration Legal Services Department in order to be able to touch students, faculty, staff and their immediate family members all across the state. For a lot of the students, speaking from personal experience, I am the very first person that they speak to that is an immigration attorney.

A lot of the times, even students who have some kind of status or who are covered by the DACA program have not spoken with an attorney, have not understood their current legal standing, do not know what opportunities are available to them. And having the immigration legal services be provided to students from the crucial ages that our students at the Cal State system.

are, is immensely important, because some of the ages at which immigration benefits are no longer available to folks are cut off, in most cases the age of 21. So speaking to somebody before they turn 21 is of vital importance. I know you heard from a student earlier who, just five weeks before turning 21 years old, came to our office to discover that she was eligible for a pathway to citizenship. This is not a unique situation.

We wind up speaking to many, many students who are in similar situations. And for some unfortunate students, they've already made it past that birthday. But they have siblings, they have family Members who can still receive that assistance in order to make sure that they are secure. And so what I've noticed firsthand from doing this work for the last four years is that these students gain stability when they go to University.

They have access to certain types of resources, and being able to have access to this type of stability. What I've heard from clients is that it's just something that used to be a burden, it used to be troublesome. People had let things expire because they could not afford their representation.

And just having access to a trusted source that comes from their University has created the ability for them to stay in school, to graduate, and having access to our legal services and getting access to work permits and status has allowed them to actually put those degrees to use, pay into California taxes, and, for a lot of our clients, eventually become U. S. Citizens, voting members of the California community. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next up.

Good evening, chair and Members. My name is Ortencia Rodriguez. I'm with the Acacia Center for justice. I'm here in strong support of the Children's Holistic Immigration Representation project. CHIRP provides holistic legal representation to unaccompanied children across the state. Unaccompanied children face unique hardships as they navigate a complex immigration system. Too often alone, many have experienced trauma, school interruption, and housing instability. CHIRP bridges legal and social services.

Every unaccompanied child represented under this program is assigned an attorney as well as a social worker or a case manager for the entirety of their case. These powerhouse teams under CHIRP have successfully helped children avoid homelessness, mitigate labor trafficking risks, and strengthen their relationship with their caregivers. CHIRP is critical to ensuring immigrant children are not lost or forgotten in the complex path they must navigate.

I ask that the state commit to reinvesting in CHIRP's critical services, as well as reinstating the proposed cuts to CSU and TPS immigration legal services programs. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Hi. My name is Jocelyn. I'm a recent graduate from California State University of Fresno. I'm here to represent and support the immigration legal services that help CSU students. I didn't know that I would be able to go to college and be a graduate because of my immigration status, but with the help of this program, they've helped me renew my DACA and cover the fees and as well as obtaining a work permit.

And through this process, through these years, I'm in a spot now where two months ago, I was actually able to get my mom her own place, and I just feel like that's every immigrant's dream. And I'm currently in the process of getting my green card, so hope all goes well, because another dream of mine is to visit my birthplace. But, yeah, I'm here to ask to protect and preserve immigration legal services that helps CSU students. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Hamid Yazdan. On behalf of Immigrant Defense Advocates here to state my strong support for immigration legal services at the Cal State University program, CHIRP as well as TPS. I really want to emphasize that immigration legal services are not only a lifeline for individuals and families, but they're an investment from the state into communities of color, immigrant communities that often need legal services to stabilize themselves and to turn into economic units that can reinvest in the state and continue to thrive.

Thank you. Next up.

We know that this November, immigrants may once again come under attack by a change in presidential administration. We would ask that California prepare these communities in the event that they face ongoing enforcement, racist attacks and family separation, which we've seen over and over again. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up

Good evening. My name is Edwin Soto Salcedo. I am proud to share that I will be graduating this may with a master's of business administration. I am undocumented and protected under the DACA program.

And just last year I was able to benefit from the services that are offered by CARESEN and legal services in my college, in my University. And I was able to travel to Guatemala to immerse myself in the mayan indigenous communities to learn alternative ways in which they practice business and have created beautiful ways to thrive their businesses using ancestral knowledge and practices. I was able to also travel to my hometown of Mexico and see my father, who I had not seen in 13 years.

I got to celebrate my birthday for the first time in 30 years since I came to the US back in Mexico with my family. I got to dance with my father. I got to go to Pride in Mexico City to celebrate my most authentic self. Although I was there only three weeks, I wasn't able to really do much and really get back those 13 years that I was separated with my dad.

And that was because of the services that garrison was able to do and help me getting an advanced parole. Last month, on February twelfth, at 6:30 in the morning, I received a call that my father had suddenly passed away in Mexico. And...

It's not the call that any child wants to get, especially being so far away and in my status not having the legal authority to just exit the country. The first people that I called was the CARECEN College Legal services, and the attorneys immediately, within hours, were able to provide me paperwork and the funding and all the support I needed to be able to get the permission to travel back to Mexico City to see my dad one last time.

I got to close my dad's coffin and I got to lay him to rest. And I wouldn't have been able to do this without the CARESEN College legal services. And I ask that you continue funding the CSU college legal program without the proposed budget cut. And we continue to preserve and really protect the funds that go because there are other students that might go through this. And this is truly life changing and a vital part of our immigrant community at the CSU system. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Good evening. Kim Lewis, representing Children Now and a proud member of the End Child Poverty Coalition. Just want to add our voices to the chorus and not repeat anything else that has already been said and just urge you to reject the cuts for our children. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Members. My name is Kevin Buffalino. I'm here with Sacramento Food bank and Family Services. Our organization has been in existence for 48 years, but we're currently providing food to more individuals and families than ever before. Food insecurity is truly at an all time high, even higher than during the height of the pandemic. We're now providing food assistance to about 300,000 Sacramentans every month, which is double the amount of people we were feeding just four years ago.

In 2019, it's clear that low income families and individuals are hurting. With pandemic era support programs now ended and hunger still on the rise, we urge the legislature to protect and strengthen anti hunger and anti poverty programs critical for millions of Californians.

I urge you to reject cuts to CalWORKs and support food bank requests for disaster food and Cal food on time implementation of the CalFresh minimum nutrition benefit pilot, admin needs for summer EBT, and expand food for all to all ages and implementing it without delay. I'm also here on behalf of the California Association of Diaper Banks, of which Sacramento Food bank and Family Services is one relative to the poverty programs under the Department of Social Services, being considered for cuts.

We want to note that the state funding for California's eight diaper banks, which have provided over 160,000,000 free diapers to families in need over the last several years, is expiring on June 30. Without continued funding, the state funded diaper banks will cease operations and the infrastructure we've built over the past several years will crumble.

The over 1 million families that rely on us for free diapers, will have to start spending about $80 to $100 per month on diapers and making impossible decisions between necessities like food, utilities, rent, transportation, childcare and the health of their infants. We urge the Subcommitee to provide funding to continue this program, which is being championed by Assembly Members Ortega, Pellerin and Addis. Please keep the elimination of our state's diaper banks in mind as you review the cuts to other CDSS programs. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up.

Good evening. Jean Yamasaki, Immigrant Legal Defense based in Oakland, California. Co-founder and managing attorney I urge you, the Legislature, to reject the proposed cuts in the Governor's Budget and to fully Fund the CSU Immigration Legal Services project, we witness firsthand every day the enormous effect this project has on the lives of the students at these 23 campuses, many of them which are located in what you'd call legal services deserts.

I'd say most of the students we talked to have never spoken to an immigration attorney. They just didn't have access, and many of them never knew that they were eligible for a form of relief that is a pathway to citizenship through gaining the right to work and legal status. These students can continue their college education because they can work in the summer to support themselves.

They can enter into their chosen profession because they can get licensure or whatever they need to be able to work in their profession. They find stability for themselves and for their families, and they can fully participate in and contribute to the California economy. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up.

My name is Yoshi Mendez, and I work at immigrant legal defense, and I'm here to ask you for your support of the CSU Legal Services Program. It definitely makes a huge difference in our community. I get to work with clients, with students that are either in San Francisco or all the way to Bakersfield and especially in the Bakersfield Fresno area. It makes a huge difference.

As mentioned before, there are not a lot of trusted organizations that will help their cases, and we are one of those organizations. We are making a difference in their lives. And at the end, when they get their work permit, many times when they get their work permit, they are definitely super excited and thankful. So I'm sure that they will greatly appreciate if you continue to support this program. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, good to see you. Cathy Senderling McDonald, on behalf of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, urging rejection of the CalWORKs cuts. These severe cuts will force the county to severely curtail staffing and services, exactly the types of services that people have talked about, the critical need for increasing, not reducing. And it does shift the burden of the budget deficit onto our lowest income and most vulnerable families and communities.

Another way to think about it, too, is these goals that we've talked about with the calor program that you heard about with the pilot, which presents such a critical opportunity for the state to really make changes to the program, to make it much more responsive and much more of a partnership with families and meeting the needs of families and their children. It will undermine those goals as well to have the severe cuts that are proposed come to pass. For those reasons, we urge a rejection and. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, Eileen Cubanski with CWDA. But because working moms need to help each other out, I'm standing right here now on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in strong opposition to all the CalWORKs cuts and urging you to reject those. Thank you.

Good evening. Danielle Bradley on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, I want to echo our county, other county representatives here and voice our strong opposition to the CalWORKs cuts.

As stated, this will make it extremely difficult for counties to administer these essential services, and ultimately our most vulnerable residents will feel the burden of these cuts. We recognize during difficult budget years, difficult decisions must be made, but we must preserve our social safety net programs and services to prevent families from falling deeper into poverty. Thank you very much and have a good evening.

Thank you. Next up

Good evening. Thank you, chair. Let me fix that. There we go. Good afternoon. Thank you chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Jose Vargas. On behalf of United Ways of California and poverty in California, members of the End Child Poverty Coalition, our priorities as they relate to this hearing are to stop the cuts that are proposed for the CalWORKs program. Build on the governor's Tamp pilot proposal to reimagine CalWORKs end deep child poverty by raising grants to at least 50% of the federal poverty level for all families.

Expand food for all to all Californians. Ensure CDSS has what it needs to maximize summer EBT support. CDS's request to extend their guaranteed income pilot program authority through 2028. Fund AB 2263 to chart the state's course from guaranteed income pilot to statewide policy.

And lastly, on behalf of United Ways of California, we hope that the Committee would look to protect the successful programs like the ones mentioned today, as well as complementary systems like 2 and 1 that invest in what we know works best, meeting people where they are and helping them navigate the systems of care as a state. Let's not make the decision to keep people in poverty, but keep fighting it. Thank you for your continued leadership. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, honorable chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Matias Bernal and I have the privilege of being the Executive Director of Education and Leadership Foundation, an organization based in Fresno, California, serving immigrant communities, students and providing various special projects. Today I'm speaking to ask the committee to send a message to the Governor that we cannot cut programs like the CSU and TPS immigration legal services that are transformative services.

I am a proud graduate of Fresno State in 2011 and master's in 2012, and if this program had been in effect back when I was a student, I would have qualified for the special juvenile visa as I came to this country and documented by myself at 14 years old. But because the program was not in existence and I did not know nor had access to legal services, I am still an undocumented immigrant, but a proud DACA recipient.

In my work as education Leadership foundation, we also are recipients of the One California funding that provides immigration legal services to our communities. And we are proud to serve about 3000 individuals in successful applications every year. But we couldn't do that without partners like ILD, CARECEN, and others that are serving our students within their campus, their families. We try to serve the rest of the communities.

And if you were to cut programs like this one, organizations like mine and others, we're going to try to find our best way to support those individuals as well. But we're just adding more to our waiting list. And we currently have over 200 folks waiting for legal services just for screening. So by cutting programs like this, we would be adding more and more and more. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up.

Hi. Good evening. I'm Barbara Pinto. I'm the co Executive Director of Immigrant Legal Defense. We're one of the four nonprofit organizations that serve the CSU Immigration Legal Services project. And this program, as you've heard, is crucial to our community. I experienced firsthand what it's like to not have this program. I'm a proud CSU alum, but also formally undocumented.

So when I was a student at San Francisco state, my parents and I were undocumented and we were eligible to apply for a green card after waiting 20 years here in the US, undocumented. And we had nowhere to go for these legal services. And I really wish they existed at that point, we could not afford a private attorney. We were in San Francisco, but we could not find a free help and free attorney. We navigated that process by ourselves. It was very isolating, scary.

And before things went wrong, fortunately, there was an attorney that helped us a little bit to make sure things went well. But we really needed the help of services, and we need to do better as a state for this new generation of students and families. We have done better. This program has been very successful these past five years as an attorney.

We've served thousands of individuals, and I've seen how life changing this program was, and I really wish it existed when I was a student and really needed that support. So I'm hoping we continue and hoping this program is thriving and continues even when my children end up in college and in the education system. So thank you very much for your time and support.

Next up.

Good afternoon. My name is Fatima Zeferino and I am a senior at California State University, Long Beach. I also serve as a goddess and legal advocacy fellow at CSU LB, where I have recognized the importance of the CSU immigration legal services program. Back in 2020, I was transitioning from my educational journey as a senior in high school to a first year college student. I struggled to navigate the higher education process as a first generation AB 540 student coming from an immigrant household.

At the same time, the DACA program had opened up and it was difficult for my family and I to find an affordable attorney that could help me file my DACA application. Fortunately, as an incoming student, I was connected to the Dream Resource center at CSU LB, where I met the CARECEN Legal services team. They were able to assist me with filing my DACA application at no cost. That relieved the financial burdens my family and I were facing.

After hearing about the potential 75% cut to the program, it is devastating to know that incoming and current students will no longer have access to these services that make a huge difference for them and their families. I urge you all to please help us save all the funding so that the college legal services can continue to support students, staff, faculty, and alumni of Cal State Universities. Thank you.

Thank you. Next Up.

Hello. Thank you for your time and attention. I am Mercedes Serrano, managing attorney at Central American Research Center, one of the four organizations that provide free legal services to the CSU system. I'm here today to urge you to stop the proposed budget cuts that we have in the future. Because if this was to happen, it would essentially wind down these services that we're able to provide services to faculty, staff, and students and their families.

This is an investment in the future of California as our services ensure that current and future professionals are able to stay in this country with legal immigration status. Also, I urge you to please stop the budget cuts to TPS services as this helps preserve unity and stability in many families here in California, especially right now in this very unstable times. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Erica Ascencio. I am a managing attorney at CARECEN and one of the legal providers of immigration services for CSU students.

I am here in strong support of preserving the CSU immigration legal services program at its full funding of $7 million and also in support of TPS funding. The proposed budget cut of 75% will all but eliminate this critical resource students have grown to rely on for reputable legal representation directly accessible through their campuses. These students struggle to afford their tuition, let alone exuberant attorney fees for legal assistance.

Failure to restore full funding for this program would be a grave disservice to this young population studying to become our future. Engineers, teachers, nurses, and more. I urge you not to abandon them now. Thank you.

Did you get your juris degree at, like, age five or something?

I'm 32. I just look a lot younger. Thank you, though.

Girl. I'm such an underachiever. I got work to do. All right. Thank you. Next up.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Hector. I live in Boyle Heights, and I'm a graduating senior at Cal State LA studying civil engineering. I used to consider myself a foolish dreamer with nothing but hopes for the future. That changed when I met the amazing people through the CSU Immigration Legal Services program. It extends to this program that I got the opportunity to keep pursuing my dream of becoming a civil engineer, and I have now dedicated my career to working for the public sector.

I have taken the first step by becoming a student engineer for the City of Los Angeles, directly benefiting the people and the taxpayers that helped me get to where I am today. Now, what keeps me up at night is the thought of someone like myself not having access to the quality of legal representation that has been bestowed upon me. And so I urge you preserve and protect the CSU legal services program. It is an investment in the future of California. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Thank you. Good evening, Dr. Jackson. Jackie Gonzalez, Policy Director at Immigrant Defense Advocates. I feel a little guilty being up here, since I will be on a panel later on the CSUs. But as a former practicing immigration attorney, seeing so many of my former colleagues come up here, I do want to just give a shout out the bang for the buck that the state is getting with the attorneys doing these cases. You couldn't hire better private attorneys. That's with the CSU program.

I want to dedicate my time to CHIRP, the Children's Holistic Immigration Representation project. It was a pilot project. Funding is set to end this year. The Governor has not proposed any dollars in the budget for this program. Unaccompanied minors have a special place in my heart. I became a mom 10 years ago. 10 years ago in 2014 was when the state then thought was it was experiencing the highest wave of unaccompanied minors coming into the state.

Behind me, you'll hear testimony much more powerful than mine about. From some teenagers who have come as unaccompanied minors. But the kids that are not here are nine year olds, six year olds, five year olds. Those are the kids I saw in my offices. And I can't, for the life of me being nine months pregnant, shake the image of a nine year old girl who helped her 7 and 5 year old siblings across the border and arrived at my office with a paper bag.

A program like CHIRP did not exist at the time. So for attorneys who are in these offices, whether they're at the border, and I want to state my support for the border, whether at metropolitan areas, rural areas, all of these people come to the offices, they come to all of our cities, and they need our assistance. And this population is so vulnerable. When you're in those offices, if you work on these issues, you care about these issues. You have to be everything to that child.

So when you hear these things, I want you to understand that it's not just teenagers that are coming. There are children coming. And CHIRP provides not just legal services, but social services. And it's a really unique model centered on the best practices from child welfare. California is right to be putting forward this model, and like so many of the programs mentioned earlier today, it provides an infrastructure. It's at 16 organizations across the state.

I will stop because many of them are here behind me, and I want to seed my time to them. But thank you for indulging my comments.

Thank you very much. Next up.

Hi. My name is Kristina McKibben Size, and I'm the Executive Director of Community Justice alliance, and we are so proud to be part of the Chirp network. We're here in strong support of chirp, and we believe that this is the most impactful and accompanied child program in the nation. And this is why. Number one, language access is unparalleled.

Our tiny nonprofit has been able to overnight serve 16 languages throughout the state, up to the Oregon border and all the way down to the grapevine because of the language access support that we have through this program. Number two, the social services support is comprehensive and has literally saved lives. We've intervened in suicides. We've moved children out of unsafe housing, and it also means more youth in schools. And number three, the wraparound support also means that children won't face deportation alone. And Jackie's right.

We've had clients as young as two, and so they're fighting deportation alone. And this not only ensures long term stability, but also the short term stability that they care about. They deserve safety. We've seen some very splashy New York Times articles about the exploitation of unaccompanied children, and this is the anecdote. I firmly believe that, and I call for your investment. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. Hey, como estas?

Bien, bien. Hola, buenas noches. Me nombre es Jose. Yo llege a los Esados Unidos como unaccompanado a diesisiete anos.

Hello, my name is Jose. I arrived to the US as an unaccompanied minor at age 17.

Estoy aqui apoyando programa CHIRP que ayuda con assistencia legales y sociales a los jovenes como yo.

Today I'm here in support of the CHIRP program that provides social services and legal services assistance to youth like me.

Este programa le ayuda mi hermana, Maria, qiuen asta esta hoy, a recibe ayuda para subscribir a escuela y ayuda a seguro medico y assistencia legal servicios. A que no me pude tener.

Me gustaria que apoye a la programa CHIRP para que mas jovenes como yo y mi hermana reciben mas apoyos.

Today I would like to ask for your support for programs like CHIRP that will continue to assist individuals like my sister and I.

This program today is going to assist my sister Maria, who is here today, who recently arrived to the US as an unaccompanied minor. She will receive assistance to help with school enrollment, to obtain Medi-Cal, and even to receive free legal immigration services, something that I wasn't able to get in the past.

My sister and I. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Gracias.

Hi, good evening. My name is Valentina Sanabria. I'm coming from Moreno Valley, California. I am a recent graduate from Cal State San Bernardino. I've been here...

Oh, you're one of my bosses. Let me get myself together here.

I've been here for 16 years in the United States. I came at 10 years old with my sister, who was eight at the time. My parents brought us here for a better life, like many of these kids and many of these people that have talked to you today. I graduated in 2020 with a bachelor's degree in media communications, and throughout my school years I was experiencing a very tough immigration case that was out of my hands and not my fault.

This case led me to be in deportation procedures, and I didn't know what to do. I didn't have the income or the money to be able to afford a lawyer. So the Undocumented Student Center from Cal State San Bernardino reached out to me and told me that there was a free service for me, which is CARECEN, for free legal service. They helped me out tremendously. It was a very long case, four and a half years to be exact. They helped me through everything.

They got me away from immigration or, I'm sorry, from deportation procedures. And now I can happily and luckily say that I'm a permanent resident of the United States as of December of last year. Cutting these funds for this program is going to take away opportunities like the one that I had for a bunch of kids.

I personally know two cases that are going on right now that I mentioned to them that funds might get cut, and without that, they're not going to be able to fix anything. Their life won't change. And we're all here. We were brought here for a better life, which is what we all want. So we ask you to please help us in any way possible to not cut these funds. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Good evening. My name is Elisa, and I am affiliated with CSUMB and the Central Coast. Thanks to this program, three generations of my family, including my mother, who has been working at UCSC after 20 years, was able to obtain legal aid, finding temporary relief for deportation. And this was just the first step in our long journey. And for the first time in seven years, as a DACA recipient, ILD was able to go beyond and above surface to aid our family.

This is just one of the many families in the Central area that have experienced lack of nonprofit legal aid. I ask that you please support and vote against cutting and defunding this program, which not only does it affect the individual who is seeking services, rather the entire family and community as a whole. Defunding this program takes away community workers who, thankfully to the investment in this program, have been able to return back to our community as social, health, education, law, and labor workers.

I ask that you continue to support funding in order for our community to continue evolving for our future generations to provide what today's CSU immigration legal services has provided for us. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next up.

Hello. Good evening. My name is Jose Morales. I'm from the Central Coast. I'm affiliated with CSUMB. I've been quite ignorant on how powerful having an immigration attorney until I got in contact with ILD due to the limited resources available to me, and they have helped me out in the most vulnerable time in my life and got me past them. I ask you to support and vote against cutting the defunding of this program.

Thanks to the ILD, I have been able to renew mine and continue to afford my DACA renewal. This helps me to continue to be a licensed contractor, painting contractor, and serve my community. Because of the funding you have been providing, you have not just helped college students and their family members create a better future, but you have provided the most important thing, and that is hope that someday in the future, they're going to help create a fruitful nation. Thank you for your...

You ever go to CSU Monterey Bay?

That's right.

Okay. Beautiful, beautiful place.

Thank you for your time and investment.

Yeah. Next up.

Good evening. My name is Monica Ortega, and I'm an attorney with Community Justice Alliance, and I'm here in strong support of the Children's Holistic Immigration Representation Project, or CHIRP. The program ensures that unaccompanied immigrant youth are assigned to a fully integrated team that includes an attorney and social services staff member to support them throughout their case. It's often that attorneys don't always get the chance to provide their clients with the much needed holistic approach.

Most of my clients have suffered immense trauma and need more than anything for their mental health and basic assistance in adjusting to life in a country where they don't know the language. While working with most of my clients, their first question is never, what kind of relief am I able to get. But rather it's how can I enroll school, how can I get health insurance. Basic needs that, without a program like CHIRP, they wouldn't be met. I have the honor of working with social workers to provide these needs to my clients, and I urge you to take into consideration that CHIRP is a life altering program. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Good evening. My name is Natalia Osorio-Elizondo, and I'm a legal advocate for unaccompanied children. I'm here in strong support of the CHIRP Legal Social Services program for unaccompanied youth that provides youth with an attorney as well as a social worker. CHIRP has been transformative, not only for individual youth, but for legal services as a whole. Traditional programs do not provide funding to tackle external challenges that influence a child's immigration case.

CHIRP allows us to address a client's situation holistically. Whether that be obtaining a psychosocial assessment, advocating for children in the educational setting, or setting aside a client's deportation order. Unaccompanied children with an attorney are seven times more likely to receive an outcome to stay in the US. However, only one in 78 unaccompanied children have access to a free or low cost attorney. CHIRP is critical to closing the gap, and it will lead to more children...

An elimination of this program will lead to more children defending themselves in immigration court alone and navigating complex social services systems on their own. I urge Congress to refund the program as part of next year's budget. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Hello. My name is Jennifer Mandujano Belman, and I am with the organization Community Justice Alliance, here in strong support of the Children Holistic Immigration Representation Project, or CHIRP. CHIRP is an essential program for unaccompanied youth who often do not have the care, guidance, and support that all children deserve. I have seen firsthand how youth have benefited greatly from this program, from having legal representation to an assigned social worker and case manager. This program has transformed their lives.

It's helped youth have hope once again and let themselves envision a brighter future. As we face a difficult budget process, we should be mindful that we do not ask the most vulnerable amongst us to pay the heaviest price. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you very much. Next up.

Good evening. My name is Jessica Emigdio, and I am with Community Justice Alliance. I am here in strong support of Children's Holistic Immigration Representation Project, or CHIRP. I stand before you today as a witness to the remarkable evolution of unaccompanied youth that have gone through programs designed to support them. I've seen these resilient youth arrive to a new country, often without support, facing various obstacles.

Yet through the coordinated efforts of social services and legal support, I've seen them transform from closed off young people who want to be as invisible as possible to courageous individuals that use their voice to advocate for supports of programs like this and that can help other youth as much as it has helped them. You heard from one of them today. Jose did not let language barriers stop him from coming here today to stand before you and advocate for programs that helped unaccompanied youth.

I urge you to recognize the profound impact of having both legal and social service supports because these youth really need it. Without these supports that are often really hard to find, many youth will fall through the cracks. In conclusion, I ask for the continued support of holistic programs like CHIRP that support the rights and well being of unaccompanied youth. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Next up,

Good evening, Chair and Members. My name is Brian. I'm with Community Justice Alliance and I'm here in strong support of CHIRP. I urge your support for the continued funding of vital services aimed to assist unaccompanied undocumented minors. The legal and social work services provided to these vulnerable individuals are essential for ensuring their well being and safeguarding their rights.

Unaccompanied minors arrive to California often facing numerous challenges, including navigating complex legal processes without proper representation and coping with trauma from separating from their families. The service funded through this program play a crucial role in providing the minors with the support and resources they need to access justice, receive appropriate care, and integrate into our communities. By investing in these services, we not only uphold our moral obligation to protect vulnerable children, but also promote a more just and compassionate immigration system.