Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 3 on Health and Human Services

Good morning, everyone. You don't have to respond. It's totally okay. No pressure. Little fun. Fun story. I participated in a poker tournament last night and I cleaned house. I won. And then I thought, how many poker tournaments do I need to be in to Fund these programs we're going to talk about today because I think we need to do everything under the sun to protect the programs we're going to be talking about today. These are just one of our most, most vulnerable.

It's hard to rank everything under sub three of most. Most, right. I feel like I just need to add most to the fifth power or something like that because these are just such impactful programs and we see the data, how much it helps, gets people back, you on their feet. And it's, I get it. Tough budget year.

And I think the one question that a lot of my colleagues and I are asking is how are we determining what to cut, what to delay, and what to preserve and protect and further invest in? I know we haven't got an answer yet. Maybe this is the time, this is the hearing. We'll get an actual answer versus, zero, it's just because it's a bad budget. But not looking forward to, but looking forward to this conversation because these are just very hot topics.

So to that rant over, we're going to begin and talk about two different departments. Today we have Department of Child support services, and then we're going to do Department of Social Services. We have, as always, a couple of panels to talk about these issues. Due to that, we're going to do public comment three different times today. We're going to do public comment after the First Department of Support Services issue 1 and 2.

Then we're going to go on to issue one through four under social services and then do public comment for that. And then issues five through 14 and 15 are going to move forward and then move to public comment after that. Great. To that, I'd like to begin with our first Department, child support services, if we can have the Department come on up, please, to kick us off with our overview. Department of Finance. Lao, join the party if you could. State your name and title, and you may begin with answering the questions on the agenda.

Good morning. David Kilgore, Director for the Department of Child Support Services. You wanted an overview of child support or just jump right into questions? For the first question on the child support arrears pass through for formerly assisted CalWORKS families, is the Department on track for implementing? We do have that technology squared away and ready to go for implementation next week. And then, pending that implementation, payments collected on May 1 or after would then be subject to this new change in the law.

For question number two, providing update on the administration's evaluation of the trigger for currently assisted CalWORKS. This is a. A question mark in my mind. The trigger expires this year. There's no expectation of that being extended or reset at this point. So if the Legislature wanted to take this up at a later date, we'd have to kind of go through the whole motions again, unless less things were adjusted with the timeline on the trigger. Wanna wait? An update on the findings of the department's plan.

Implement recommendations for uncollectible debt. So this was done in two different phases. The first phase was the mandatory uncollectible debt factors which were implemented January of last year. Subsequently, we've got a report with UC San Diego that is wrapping up right now and should be here with us in May, right in the summertime. My understanding is their report is going through their council for review and then will be sent to us.

That will give us direction and recommendations on what to adopt for the child support program to wrap up and review, determine how to assess our remaining cases for determining uncollectible debt. And for question number four, the budget act includes the 35.8 million of ongoing increased support for lcsas. How much of that has been spent? Approximately? We expect half of that to be spent this year. So the balance of that is the potential for reverting to the General Fund, which is about $6 million.

Short and sweet to the point. I forgot your LAO. Okay, thank you. Can you share some remarks on the fourth question regarding what we can see in unspent dollars and if your numbers match what the Department is saying with regards to unspent money to the LCSAs? Yes.

Thank you. Good morning. Angela Short with the Legislative Analyst Office for those numbers. We have received that information from the Department. So the numbers that we are tracking. As for spending for the LCSA admin funding for the current year, that does match. Our understanding is that part of the underspend for this year is that the Department did issue instructions to LCSAs to take actions to reduce or limit costs in line with instructions from the Governor, given the budget situation. So that is part. Part of, of the underspend for the, this year. But over the past few years, there has been a pattern of underspend for that admin funding as well.

Okay. Do we have any want or will we be looking at potentially clawing back future years? Like, just do let me bring it back for the single allocation funding. One of the proposals is to do a permanent $41 million ongoing cut because it's always unspent. We're hearing that it's always unspent for the admin funding for LCSAs. Do we look at that as we do single allocation, saying, hey, we should just automatically cut $6 million, since that's around the average, that it goes unspent moving forward.

So the trend of the LCSAs is, over the last few years, they've had an increased amount of money, money over three years in. So they've been trying to spend up to that and they're trying to ramp up, but it always takes some time and the money comes, and then they. They have to start to move.

So they have been increasing their allocation each year and using up the two years ago funding and then the one year ago funding, and now they've got the third year that they're trying to use up. They have, since January ish, started to taper that off, knowing that no additional funding is coming, and they're expecting cost COLA increases, and negotiations happen at a local level. So they're anticipating balances that are left this year are going to be eaten up by COLAs and expenses in subsequent years.

Okay, my second question is related to your response to number two on the trigger language. Can you say that to me again? There's no anticipation from the Department to extend that trigger language.

Well, we don't have anything set to extend that. We're not exactly sure how that's gonna be worked out. So if there is a decision to move forward with current assistance, full pass through, it's a challenge when it comes to the budget. You can say yes now, but our implementation is probably two years out. You don't know what the budget's gonna look like then.

We're not exactly sure how to maneuver around that, to start the technology adjustments, if that's what's necessary, and then look at the budget later. Right now, they're tied together. You make the decision today that it's not physically feasible because of the budget, but this next year is not the year that would be impacted by that anyway. So we're not exactly sure what the intent is here on how to address the trigger language.

So we couldn't potentially just add new trailer bill to say, another trigger, you could. Okay.

Yeah, it's possible.

Okay. Because that's what I'm interested in. Just to not let it go. Not let it go. Just put another trigger, extend that language until we have appropriation for that.

Sure.

My other question sir, is regarding the uncollectible debt, do we have any understanding of the mix of demographics who are under this category of uncollectible death? I know we've made great strides in removing people of veteran benefits, SSI and so forth, but who is making up majority of this demographic now?

Well, we are developing a lot more data and metrics on the demographics. Ostensibly, the majority of the population in the child support program is on the poorer side of our community. Those with more means will typically get their child support orders through family law and with attorneys and things like that. So just in General, our population tends to be poor. And of course, the demographics follow the demographics of California. With people of COVID making up large portion of our child support caseload. I could gather data on specifically what that looks like, but those trends follow consistent with California's trends and just population.

Does the Department have a next demographic they want to focus on?

We are currently looking at people of color as our primary demographic. That we're looking at secondary would be veterans, those that are incarcerated, some of those individuals that tend to end up in our population. But demographics is one of our primary, aside from our biggest population, which is, of course, just the demographic of being poor or under lower side of it, the income threshold.

Okay. Department of Finance, do you have anything additional to add?

Maurice Sanchez, Department of Finance, nothing further to add.

And I know I just asked you specifically on that question, but I didn't know if there was anything else you'd like to comment on.

Thank you. Yes. Just regarding your questions around the trigger for the full pass through for currently assisted cowworks families, just to confirm, that is our understanding as well. The Legislature could include new trailer Bill Language as part of this budget, directing the Department of Finance to continue to look to make that determination at a future date that the General Fund could sustain the impact of implementing the full pass through. But yes, our understanding, or our best guess at this point point, is that, of course, with the current budget situation, it will not move forward this year.

Yeah, 100%. Unfortunate. I think when I first learned about this topic last year, I was floored. I could not believe that this is what we do. I think it's really disgusting, but I am happy that next week we're gonna rectify part of that situation. That's such amazing news to hear, and I am interested.

We will be pushing to have Trailer Bill to extend the trigger and being mindful that we want to make sure that once we have funds available, that we finish the second population and so forth. That's great. I don't have any other questions for you. That is it. On issue number one, are you doing issue number two as well?

I do have issue number two as well.

Okay, perfect. Let's move on to issue number two on child support trust Fund overpayment.

David Kilgore, Director for the Department of Child Support Services. So the payment trust Fund issue that we're trying to resolve here is partially in conjunction with arrears pass through and potentially current support pass through down the road. Our trust Fund is the Fund where all of the child support goes through. $2.5 billion annually, cycles through this account and goes out. We have a two day timeframe turnaround for delivering this money out.

Historically, we've utilized arrears, full pass through current assistance, that chunk of money, to kind of keep this, this account solvent for making those go through. But now that we're passing that money through, our risk of that account hitting zero and us being negative is a problem.

There are reasons why the trust Fund takes negative hits for IR's negative adjustments that gets pulled back when we intercept IR's payments that are inadvertently applied to wrong cases, payments that are collected or dispersed in excess of the child support order, credit card chargebacks, all those things go on accounts as accounts receivables that we attempt to collect. At some point down the road, this trailer Bill Language will give us stronger mechanisms to go and collect that accounts receivables.

But at the end of the day, there is a balance, negative balance that we kind of carry. We want to make sure that through this trivia language using our own budget, whatever we might have at the end of the year, put a little bit in there over time so that we make sure that that account never hits zero.

Okay. LAO, any comment?

Angela Short with the LAO. Just to confirm, we have reviewed the language and raised some additional questions with the Department. So at this point, we don't have any concerns or questions outstanding. Okay, thank you.

Maurice Sanchez with Department of Finance. Nothing further to add.

Thank you, Maurice. No further questions on my end. We're gonna hold both issues 1 and 2 open and then move on to public comment on issues 1 and 2. If you wish to give public comment on Department of Child Support Services, please step forward.

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Menjivar. Rebecca Gonzalez. And today I'm here with the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition. Western Center on Law and Poverty is part of. We are a coalition of over 50 organizations that seek to bring equitable reform to our state child support system to better support Low income children and their families. To reduce child poverty. I really want to thank you for your comments about the Trailer Bill language. That is something that we are really looking toward.

We are having conversations, had conversations with our staff, with your staff, and that we want to reaffirm the state's commitment and priorities to enable full pass through of child support payments to families that are currently on CalWORKS as part of the 2627 budget. We also want to support necessary funding for DCSS and DSS to continue the automation and system change necessary to implement this policy once so there are no further delays once funding is available.

Lastly, in the future, we need to pass legislation to address the unintended consequences on other benefits a family may be receiving, as outlined by the soon to be released DSS workgroup report on some of the other issues you mentioned quickly. zero, sorry. We want to stop the collection of all governmental debt.

We had suggested assess prior to 2008 because there was a data change from the counties holding the data to the state and so there was some discrepancies and prior to 2008 is really old debt and kids are grown up by then and then also make the individual debt reduction program accessible to eligible Low income parents to have their debt forgiven and stop the collection of interest on government owed child support debt. Thank you and we look forward to working with you on these issues.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing that up. Director, I forgot to ask you that question. And when I asked you the question regarding what demographic potentially we're looking at, I know you mentioned people of color and so forth. That's one of the people who are in their fifties, sixties and still have that collective debt. Are we four years full pass through?

Yes. So the children are no longer, no longer children on the system or no longer part of the program. So yes, these are folks that are a little older typically, but they still have this outstanding debt that's on government. And right now we still retain that, but now we'll be pushing that through to the other side.

But they're the ones who are going to get the relief in the week.

Those payments on those individuals will be passed through to the other side of the family instead of retained for government. That's, we just won't push the money through to the families instead of retaining it for government.

Right. Okay. Yes, sorry, I misspoke here. So the, on the side of just the uncollectible debt, are we focusing on just specific demographics, like the ones that are like, zero, debt from 2008 and so forth, are we prioritizing, prioritizing certain demographics?

It is not specific demographics per se, it's, it's income history, it's incarceration. It's those types of factors that make us believe that this is likely be uncollectible, and then we can remove that from the system.

Okay.

Yeah. Good morning. Kevin Aslanian, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations. We're concerned about this incollectable debt. They know who it is. I don't know why they just don't wipe it out. I mean, this is the 21st century. I could understand in the 20th century they had a problem. And the other problem we have is the overpayment language that they have. We oppose that because it lacks due process of law.

Basically what it says is that they will determine there's an overpayment and then they would automatically, by the computer, just collect it, never give you a right to a notice of action and a right to a hearing, which is basic due process. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Andrew Shane with GRACE End Child Poverty. I'm going to line with the Truth and Justice coalition on the extending the trigger language. Thanks for your comments about that, as well as the uncollectible debt and as well on the need for due process. Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew.

I'm Christina Garcia. I'm a parent leader with Parent Voices from Marin County. I'm a domestic violence survivor who had to obtain CalWORKS resulting in my abuser being.

We're going to be talking about CalWORKS in the next issue if you wanted to.

It's relevant to the question. So when I was obtaining services that alerted my abuser that I was obtaining services, he had to pay child support. But I never received any of that money during the time that until my child was 18 years old, that made it so that I couldn't get his braces. I've been on, I wasn't able to give him necessary things. I've struggled with housing and food insecurity while being on Cal Works.

And it's just really unjust that this is the way that it is. It doesn't go directly to the families making it so that I can't give him a comfortable living. So thanks.

Thank you so much for your comments. Director, one last question to you. In the military, we use this phrase, can you give it to me Barney style on uncollectible debt, plain and simple. Why can't we erase that debt?

We currently or previously did not have a statutory authority to remove uncollectible debt. We were only given authority to negotiate the reduction of that debt. When a person is paying child support with us, we've since gotten this most recent law that allows us to start to remove uncollectible debt. We made the determination on the mandatory factors. Now we need some sort of algorithm, some sort of direction to give our local child support agencies a course of action. Take these steps when these instances occur.

In your case, we just didn't know what those were. And so that's what the study being done by UC San Diego was to say. In these instances, you should deem the child support debt uncollectible and remove it from the case.

Okay. Because we can't just do a sweeping, everyone is scot free, right?

That is possible. There's a couple different ways that could have been done. I mean, you wouldn't need a rears full pass through then, because there would be no debt to pass through. You could just make that sweeping statement. You could change all the income. Debt that's owed to the government to owed to the parents is another way that could have been done. But those were options that haven't been entertained in the past.

Okay. And then I guess that wasn't my last question. Mister Kevin brought up a point on issue number two. Do we have concerns that we're removing due process?

We don't, not from our perspective. There's a couple of different ways that this gets handled. We ask the parent through these different letters when they want, if we were to collect that money, how that, how that gets disbursed, do we take it out of the next payments that come in? And lacking any direction, we wait till the very end of the case, they've been paid everything that they're due, and then we collect the balance of what was overpaid to the receiving parent.

Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate it. All right, that concludes our First Department. We're now moving on. Department of Social Services. I welcome up the Department to come on up, Director Johnson. And then if you are part of this panelist, please welcome us in the well.

Good morning. Chair Kim Johnson, California Department of Social Services, here to speak about the CalWORKS program. Program which is serving an average of 340,000 families and 665,000 children every month, providing cash assistance, education, employment and training. Supportive services aimed at giving families experiencing poverty opportunities to build resilience and achieve critical economic mobility. The program predominantly serves female head of households who are women of color. And I will move right into your questions related to the proposed reductions. First for Family.

This program has been a component of the program for 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 for their family and is interfering with the adults ability to participate in welfare to work activities. This could be domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues, or risk of homelessness. Services can include more intensive case management, transitional housing, emergency shelter, rehabilitative services, counseling, and more.

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. In fiscal year 2223 family stabilization services supported approximately 44,000 families or approximately 11,000 families per quarter. The family stabilization 2223 expenditures were $60.4 million. The 2324 expenditures are projected to be $60.5 million. Additional information related to the costs are included on page 11 of your agenda.

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, effectively eliminating the program. However, the budget does not propose to statutorily eliminate the family stabilization program. The next area is subsidized employment, welfare to work. Participants can take part in a number of different activities such as employment, both subsidized and unsubsidized vocational education, job search, job readiness, and more.

Expanded subsidized employment program has operated over the last 10 years, and counties partner with private, nonprofit, and public agencies to provide CalWORKS 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. This program serves 8250 participants per month. The 21-22 expenditures were 83.8 million 22-23 90.5 million and I'd again refer you to page 12 of your agenda for more on costs and expenditures.

The Governor's Budget proposes to revert funding for the ESC program by 134.1 million in 23-24 and reduce funding by that same amount in budget year and annually thereafter. The 2023 budget act includes again the program to eliminate. However, again the Governor's Budget does not propose to statutorily eliminate the program. In terms of impact, counties will continue to provide employment services and provide job retention activities support via the single allocation.

Counties will have flexibility to continue to provide some subsidized employment services to families, but clearly not at the same degree that they could currently with the additional funding for the program also would point out that there are some additional opportunities, including subsidized employment and apprenticeship, that could be available locally through the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity act as well. The third area is intensive case management. The Governor's Budget includes a proposed delay for the planned increase to intensive case management hours to address the projected shortfall.

Intensive case management provides more intensive or one on one support for participants who may need additional assistance in overcoming barriers to employment or stability. The budget proposes to delay the planned increase to intensive case management hours to address the shortfall, resulting in a savings of $46.9 million in budget year and 47.4 General Fund annually thereafter. And so again, we had specifically identified how many hours would be associated with intensive case management from year over year.

It was planned to go up to 10 hours in budget year and are proposing to keep it at the 8.75 as it is in current year. And finally, the single allocation, again based on projected caseload, counties receive a fixed amount of funding annually for administrating CalWORKS. It includes employment services, but it also has Administration and the Cal learn intensive case management and it is fungible across those three areas within a single allocation.

To project to address the shortfall, the Governor's Budget proposes to revert $336 million of unused General Fund in 2223 at an earlier timeline than we would have already assessed what was remaining in that Fund instead of waiting till June of 2025, the early reversion will not have an impact on client support and services. For current year. The budget includes 1.7 billion for the single allocation, which is a decrease of 40.8 million compared to the Budget Act.

This proposal would result in less funding for counties to administer the program, which includes determining eligibility and case management. That's the impact of that proposal and then for budget year and further. The Governor's Budget also includes $1.4 billion for the single allocation, which represents a decrease of 159.8 million from current year and that decrease in employment services caseload.

The one time nature of the eligibility admin supplement that we had provided is proposed to be eliminated, as well as a decrease of one funding increment of $27.5 million due to caseload. We have in our methodology as caseload grows or reduces increments set forward. That is going forward here and so we're proposing to decrease by one funding increment based on caseload numbers. The Committee also asked about expenditures and why there is remaining funds, why there are remaining funds in the single allocation.

Again, as I referenced, the single allocation is fungible across the three areas that we've noted. We have heard from counties that there's concerns around insufficient Administration funding, which could cause counties to hold employment services funding for that particular purpose. Some vacancy rates, a phenomenon that's not just here in social services, but other places across the workforce. Some pandemic related impacts and the decreasing caseload has also contributed to underspending in current years. And then finally, you asked the question related to why these programs.

And I just appreciate the question. For us at social services, we serve people, so we appreciate the question and the care in which we're looking at the proposed any proposals to reduce services to people and the impact that they have. As I referenced, some of the proposals, like the early reversion, have no harm to individuals being served. And that's of course, where we want to start the conversations. The deficit is larger.

So I also though, want to point out that there is no proposal, for example, to reduce CalWORKS grants. In fact, as your agenda points out, there is a proposal to include a 0.8% increase that's due to the triggering of the revenue in the child poverty and family supplemental sub account. And we know the difference that cash assistance makes for those experiencing poverty going forward.

Your final question was related to the safety net Reserve, and I'm going to refer to my colleagues at the Department of Finance for that question.

Emily Marshall, Department of Finance so to answer question number three, without the proposed withdrawal of the safety net Reserve, additional General Fund solutions would be necessary to balance the budget and maintain existing services for medi Cal and CalWORKS. The Administration works to deliver a balanced budget to the Legislature and we take into account costs related to caseload to produce a balanced budget. And we'll continue to do so with the tools we have at the time. As far as replenishing the safety net Reserve, that is not currently part of the Governor's Budget.

I don't like that answer. Meaning I don't think I got anything out of that. I would like you to go deeper.

Honestly, at this time, it is not part of the Governor's Budget and the Governor's proposal. So we, we can't speak to replenishing the safety net Reserve at the moment.

The first part, I think the first part, I know it's not part of the Governor's Budget to replenish it, but I think. So you think it's within its statutory definition, depleting this entire Fund and cutting CalWORKS programs?

Right. I think our thought process here was that more funding would need more solutions, would need to happen if we didn't draw down this 900 million for the safety net Reserve.

Can you tell me, dollar for dollar, what the $900 million will cover?

We can't say. We don't go program to the program.

But if this Fund is created just for CalWORKS and Medi Cal.

And Medi Cal.

We would need to know what it's funding. Right. So what is it covering under CalWORKS and Medi Cal?

I don't have that information with me right now, but I can get back.

But this is a panel on this specific topic. Why wouldn't you come with more information?

We can't say the programmatic level of which the dollars are going to at the moment, but the 900 million is drawn down for MediCal and CalWORKS. A significant chunk of that is, you know, Medi Cal. Part of that is CalWORKS. So more funding from CalWORKS would need to be drawn down. I can't speak to the MediCal team since we don't see them here today. Of course, a significant amount would have to fill the budget gap if we did not pull down the 900 million. So we're, we're trying to protect the programs.

Which programs are you protecting?

The rest of the CalWORKS.

CalWORKS is basically getting slashed. So what are you protecting? I'm like really wondering how we're protecting CalWORKS.

We would need to cut in more programs if we did not pull down the safety net .

under cowworks.

Yes, potentially.

I mean, outside of the grants, what else is left? I would lie honestly. What else is left under cowworks to cut? So how is the $900 million being utilized to protect CalWORKS?

The Governor's Budget still maintains over $1.0 billion of funding, General Fund for CalWORKS programs in the 2425 budget. So we still have a significant program here with CalWORKS and we would need to cut more if we did not pull down the safety net Reserve.

I think it would help stakeholders, myself included, to really find out again with my comments in the beginning, like how we're dollar for dollar the match, what we're putting into this. I would be on board with the Administration, Department of Finance depleting this Fund if CalWORKS was being protected. I would stand with you on that because we have to do what we have to do.

I would stand with you if we even just took half of it out and we left some in there because it's protecting cowworks and we still have to delay some other programs 100%. I get it, but I feel like we're getting nothing here. We're getting depletion of Fund and majority programs getting eliminated. Like it seems really uneven where the whole point of this was to ensure that we protect these programs. And so what happens next year? Which Lao, who's Lao.

LAO, you protect the next three years a minimum of $30 billion deficit, a minimum. And somehow budget sub three is always first in line to go. So where are we going to turn to next year? 2027 and so forth? If we have nothing in this Fund, would you be able to come back to me and say, we have nothing in this Fund, but we're gonna protect the programs? I don't think so. I don't think the Administration will come back and say that.

I'm trying to figure out what do I go back and tell the stakeholders as to what we're doing on the front lines? And I know no one here went to cut these programs. Director, you mentioned you're here for the people like I know it. No one in their right mind wants to cut these programs. I know we have to do hard decisions, but I need to justify it. No one is justifying to me why this is happening outside of verbatim. The budget is bad.

The budget is bad. Like, I need to find. Help me help you. Stand with you and say, hey, stakeholders, we have to do this because of this. And we're getting every dollar from the $900 million directly into this because we know all these funds that are created are just offsetting General funds and we don't even know what it's being used for. Right. That's what I need more of.

And I'm getting just a little bit tired of people coming to this meeting and, like, we don't have that answer. You gotta come a little bit more prepared. Department finance on all the numbers as to why, where it's going. That's. I just, I. It's just hard for me to be on that side of it without having a direct answer. So, anything to say? No, we're okay. Okay. All right, so we're going to move on to our next panelists.

You, if you could please introduce yourself from California Budget and Policy Center, senior policy fellow. Yes. Who's Monica? You're Monica? I can say that one.

Good morning, Senator Menjavar. I'm Monica Saucedo with the California Budget and Policy Center. We're a nonpartisan research and analysis nonprofit. Thank you for inviting me to speak. Today I'll be presenting information related to the proposed cuts to the expanded subsidized employment and family stabilization programs under CalWORKS. As was mentioned, these programs play a pivotal role in supporting CalWORKS families. The expanded subsidized employment program offers invaluable opportunities for participants to gain job experience and skill development.

This assistance is crucial for transitioning into sustainable employment, which promotes long term economic stability, and the Family stabilization program serves as a lifeline for vulnerable families facing crises. Offering a spectrum of critical services, including housing assistance, mental health support, and crisis intervention, this program addresses multifaceted barriers to employment and family well being.

The family stabilization program differs from other CalWORKS components in that counties can provide these services to the children in these families as well as the adults, which allows all family Members to obtain the wraparound services. Together, these programs better support families in obtaining sustainable economic security and improving their General well being. The governor's proposal to fully eliminate these programs threatens to upend the progress made in supporting CalWORKS families.

Vulnerable families already grappling with systemic barriers will bear the brunt of these cuts, which will deepen their economic insecurity and disrupt their path to self sufficiency. The impact on family stability cannot be overstated. By stripping away essential support services, the proposed cuts jeopardize the well being of children and parents alike, potentially pushing them deeper into poverty and perpetuating cycles of disadvantage.

We saw this during the great Recession, when California faced a substantial budget deficit, prompting policymakers to enact drastic spending cuts exceeding $30 billion, including significant cuts to CalWORKS, which led to CalWORKS grant levels dropping to historic lows in 2013, exacerbating deep poverty, particularly among young children. The research shows that increased poverty is closely linked to increased food insecurity, negative health outcomes growth, chronic homelessness, and child welfare involvement.

Additionally, 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 with higher incomes. Therefore, reducing support for low income children during a time of economic distress and rising poverty could significantly limit California's future. Lastly, I want to reflect on the long term effectiveness of the CalWORKS program in light of these cuts.

These cuts represent a stark departure from the principles of a family first approach to Cal Works that has been a priority for policymakers in recent years. CalWORKS, like the federal TANF program, was born amidst a problematic discourse that not all families are deserving of assistance and must follow strict work requirements to earn their benefits. At the core of this is the idea of self responsibility, which minimizes the systemic barriers that affect program participants by diminishing vital support services and prioritizing rapidly moving parents into paid employment.

Over addressing systemic barriers, the proposed changes undermine the program's capacity to promote lasting economic stability and family well being. The research suggests that the work first approach pushes people into jobs similar to the ones that they lost, leading up to their CalWORKS participation, which creates an ineffective cycle of moving people between low wage, unstable employment and benefits. In fact, there's no clear link between work requirements and reductions in poverty.

Rather, the research suggests that programs that support training, education, and treatment are more successful in the long run. Moreover, in his proposed budget, the Governor indicated plans to pursue participation in the federal pilot program, which I know will be covered in detail at a later panel. But this is designed to test alternative performance indicators and move away from evaluating calwork based on work participation alone. The pilot program would evaluate program success based on indicators of sustainable employment and family stability.

Therefore, the proposal to effectively eliminate the family stabilization and expanded subsidized employment programs is completely contradictory to the governor's goal of pursuing the federal opportunity. Given these programs alignment with the pilots target metrics, the Federal Government is finally recognizing the ineffectiveness of a work first approach. Therefore, California should continue to lead the way rather than take a step backward in creating a more family centered CalWORKS program. By focusing on eliminating employment barriers so that families can feel fully supported and be able to thrive.

By strengthening programs like the Family Stabilization program, policymakers can ensure the state not only has a successful pilot application that can demonstrate to the nation what progress in real family outcomes and pathways out of poverty looks like. California is a statement of our values and priority, as you have mentioned, and budget solutions should not come at the expense of families with the greatest needs. Instead, it should reflect a commitment to providing opportunities for everyone in our state to share in California's wealth. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Director, I have a quick question for you. I forgot to ask. Can you clarify in your talking points you talked about there could potentially be a way that counties can still Fund the subsidized employment program.

The point being that within the single allocation, right, employment is a component within it. If a county wanted to use some of those dollars, they could for the purposes of subsidized employment. It means they won't do something else, maybe that they would have otherwise spent the dollars for, but it's an option that they can do.

Since there's a lot of unspent dollars in the single allocation, there's room for these counties to not send it back, right? They can just reallocate to some of these programs.

The single allocation continues to be available and part of the resource to them. I referenced some of the reasons that we've heard, and I'm sure there'll be some perspective shared in terms of why it's not fully spent. But yes, that is an allocation that is appropriated for the purposes of employment. Cal learn as well as eligibility.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to our next panelists from the County Welfare Directors Association. Hi again.

Good morning. Eileen Cubanski with the County Welfare Directors Association. I'm going to go through my testimony, but I'm happy to address more specifics on spending in the single allocation and some of these other questions. But I'll start by saying that California's CalWORKS program leads the nation as a model for how to leverage TANF to not just support children and families in deep poverty, but to provide them lasting benefit.

Our state has been at the forefront of steering the program from one that is compliance driven and siloed to one that is more accessible, supportive, and person and family centered. We've evolved the CalWORKS program significantly over the past decade or more to better meet the needs of children and families, guided by two key efforts to improve practice. The first is one that we call CalWORKS 2.0. This was a county led practice reform.

It's informed by biological and Behavioral science, which adopts a behavioral approach to help families set incremental, achievable goals. And the second is the development of the Cal or, which is a joint county and state effort that created additional outcome measures to evaluate the program beyond the work participation rate. And together these two efforts have deprioritized the federal work participation rate, emphasized a collaborative relationship between program participants and county staff, and utilized data to inform, assess, and improve county progress.

Supported by other service offerings in CalWORKS, such as family stabilization and ESE, we've continued to develop a robust family support program to improve overall family outcomes. The proposed cuts in the budget to CalWORKS will undo all of this progress that we've made over the last decade. At the core of all that we've tried to accomplish in transforming the culture of the CalWORKS program is the single allocation.

The agenda does a great job of summarizing what it is, and Director Johnson has talked a lot about the cuts. What I'll just say is, it's true we've underspent the single allocation in recent fiscal years, and I'm happy to get into kind of the dynamic that's gone on there. We're now looking at with these proposed funding reductions, cuts that cut to the bone.

Based on our quick calculations, if we're looking at just the rates of spending now, the eligibility component of the single allocation of these cuts go into effect will be underfunded relative to what we're actually spending by over $340 million. That's a 45% funding shortfall for just the eligibility component. What that means is we have to take funding from the employment services component because it's fungible and we have to cover that from employment services to cover those mandated eligibility activities.

When you layer the cuts that are also proposed to the calwork single allocation and employment services, what we're actually looking at, based on current expenditure trends, is a year over year cut to what we're spending now of $100 million total in the overall single allocation. And all of that, all of that will have to come from employment services because we have to Fund the mandated eligibility activities, which in and of themselves are a service.

Providing access to this program is a service that we provide and we want to do it well and quickly and appropriately. So all of that will come from employment services. And that's, so we're talking actual cuts. This is discontinuation of services and contractual commitments. And it's not just job search classes or resume writing. We're talking about discontinuing credit recovery services, which play a pivotal role in facilitating access to housing and employment. We're talking cutting legal services which remove barriers to education, employment and career advancement.

We're talking about cutting tangible supports that support educational employment attainment. And we're probably also, with cuts of that magnitude, looking at minimally hiring freezes in counties, if not outright staff reductions. If we were to just take $100 million cut through staff, we would have to eliminate 500 positions in the CalWORKS program statewide just to accommodate $100 million cut. So these are actual significant cuts to current levels of expenditure, not just cuts of unspent funding.

The other two programs I won't get into too much because others are going to do a great job and already have of talking to the benefits of those. But I do want to say that they, they're not just additional supports that are just nice to have. They really do round out a Continuum of services that we've developed over time to provide to our families. And they're kind of at opposite ends of that Continuum.

The family stabilization program assists families requiring those more intensive needs if they're in crises, if they have barriers, intensive barriers, and uniquely, they allow for the child to be served too. And that's really critical in terms of addressing family stability.

When we look at the cuts to the single allocation, and then we layer on top of that the withholding of the funding for the intensive case management, I mean, all of that monies that we would use to support those intensive needs through the single allocation, it's all gone. It's all gone. And so all of those, our ability to help those most intensive cases are just decimated.

Our families have many strengths, but they often face educational and work experience barriers, and they face systemic racism that makes it difficult to find jobs. And when you layer the lack of access of those job opportunities and not having those professional support networks on top of all of the other educational and experience barriers that they have, it creates an almost impossible hurdle for them to secure a job that is, that is going to be meaningful and provide lasting economic support. And that's where ESE comes in.

So it's kind of at that other end of the spectrum when a family's out of crisis, when they've got enough services and support and stabilization, and they can, they can actually move to finding a meaningful job. ESE program helps in that by providing those crucial training skills and connections to local employers. Without the wage, sorry, without the wage subsidy, we just find that it's difficult to place our clients in meaningful jobs.

So I'll just say, in conclusion, we have all worked, the counties, the Administration, the Legislature, to really transform this program to be a family centered support program, one that mitigates the most toxic effects of deep poverty. And all of these cuts at this point just completely undo all that work and are really devastating for the CalWORKS program. Thank you.

Thank you. If hypothetical, if there were no cuts to any of the CalWORKS programs and just the single allocation ongoing, would that be more digestible? Because you'd be able to have, you wouldn't have to offset anything. $1.0 million on the table? It's ongoing, correct.

So if the program funding for the two pieces were left, ese and family stabilization, and the cuts to the single themselves just went into effect, we would still have the issue of having to, year over year, cut about $100 million out of our current expenditures from the Single allocation.

Even though there's unspent of average $300 million a year.

The unspending is, I think, more a function of the interaction between the budget methodology and the way that that works and the difficulty in making really accurate caseload projections in the pandemic.

But still unspent, though, right?

Well, it was, but we have, over time, as the pandemic has ended, been gradually ratcheting down for caseload adjustments, the funding that's been provided over time to the single allocation.

So now between the normal budget adjustments downward to the single, to reflect the updated caseload projections that have more normalized now that we're out of the pandemic and the cuts on top of it, that's what's leading to now, a better, more right sizing of the amount of funding that's budgeted and the amount that we actually need and are spending to support the program as required. So we were over funded essentially in the past.

Sophie's choice. I mean, we have to do some, right, we have to do some cuts. I'm not here to say we're gonna, I mean, of course, ideally, but we have to. What would you prioritize?

What would I prioritize? It is a Sophie's choice. The nice thing about the single allocation is it is more flexible. It does allow us to serve more families. Family stabilization and ESE are targeted programs, but they're just such critical, flexible programs that are just so dynamic for us in responding to needs that it's really, it's unimaginable to think about losing those resources. You know, we have to do the employment, the eligibility work. It's really, it's impossible.

We're talking about supports that we would provide to all families through employment services versus supports that we were to provide to the highest needs families. It's really, it's like,

Think about it more. I'd love to hear at the end. Of the panel, I'd like to hear what you'd come up with. Okay. Okay. Okay. Now we're going to turn to a Member from SEIU 521, Santa Cruz County family stabilization. Hi, Barry.

Good morning. My name is Barri Domer and I'm the supervisor of the Santa Cruz County Family Stabilization Program with CalWORKS. I have been a social worker in Santa Cruz County for over 20 years and I'm a member of the SEIU 521 union and I have a prepared statement to share with you this morning that will take about five minutes. I'm here on behalf of my team and the families we serve to voice our strong opposition to the proposed elimination of the Family Stabilization Program.

We are very concerned about the destabilizing impact that eliminating this program could have on tens of thousands of parents and children across California, which may also inadvertently increase burdens and costs to the state. I'd like to share a bit about our family stabilization program's work in Santa Cruz County. We are a team of experienced social workers who serve vulnerable families with children living in poverty and experiencing crisis. We provide intensive assessment, crisis intervention, and case management.

We are all clinically trained in trauma and complex, in treating trauma and complex human behavioral issues and are often the only form of intensive and comprehensive support for the families with whom we work. The families we serve do not experience crisis as a singular issue. Therefore, the support we provide them is dynamic and multifaceted. We work with families experiencing many complex issues at once.

We help to house homeless families, we treat those suffering from trauma and other mental health issues, we increase safety for those experiencing domestic violence, and we assist those with severe addiction to engage in treatment. We create opportunity for positive change through the close professional relationships we build with our clients and in stabilizing families, we increase job readiness, employment, and family self sufficiency within our community.

If family stabilization is eliminated, we predict that California counties will experience the following negative impacts, increased homelessness, increased mental health and substance use crisis, increased numbers of victims of domestic violence who are not getting help, increased referrals to child welfare, and increased reliance and time on public assistance. Additionally, this loss would increase dependence and strain on local safety net services such as emergency rooms, psychiatric facilities, law enforcement, and legal systems.

Our work is heavily focused on prevention, and it serves to offset the costs that the state and counties would otherwise incur. Governor Newsom has shared his goal of addressing California's humanitarian crisis by creating new services for homeless, mentally ill, and addicted citizens. We applaud this goal, but please note that family stabilization is a highly effective, proven program that is already serving at risk families today in this moment, as a matter of fact. Eliminating family stabilization would be a considerable setback to achieving the governor's critical goal.

I'd like to share a brief example of our work with you. I've changed a few of the identifying details to preserve this family's confidentiality. Last year, our team worked with a single father who was homeless and sleeping in his car with his two young daughters. Despite his best efforts to quit, this dad was addicted to two destructive illicit drugs. Due to the profound stress of the situation, he was experiencing deep depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts.

One of our family stabilization social workers worked extensively with the family and supported this father to enter a residential substance use and mental health treatment program. He is now clean and sober and his mental health is stable. This father had extensive tattoos on his neck and face and due to his substance use, he had lost several of his front teeth. As you all can probably imagine, his appearance made it nearly impossible for him to become employed.

His family stabilization social worker was able to help him get his tattoos removed and his missing teeth replaced. The social worker helped this family to get into subsidized housing, and this father is now working with one of our CalWORKS subsidized employment programs and is paying his own rent and bills. He recently shared with his family stabilization social worker that he now feels like a good father. He stated that rather than feeling ashamed, as he previously did, he feels proud of his life.

This is just one of hundreds of success stories that we are honored to be a part of in Santa Cruz County every year. In closing, 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 populations. Thank you for taking the time to hear our concerns. We very much appreciate your shared commitment to the well being of children and parents in our state.

Thank you, Barri. Appreciate your comments.

Thank you.

We're going to turn now to a Parent Voices representative from San Diego, County, Brianna, I'm so sorry.

Hi, my name is Brianna Burks. I'm a leader with Parent Voices Contra Costa. I'm a mom of four. Dinero, 16, Emiliana, 11, Derek Jr., 10. My youngest, Jacob, is five. I'm here today to talk about the family stabilization program, how the family stabilization program helped me and why I want to protect it for the mother's, for the mothers who come after me. I've been on CAL WORKS since I was 17 years old. I was. I was never set up to succeed.

When I was getting CalWORKS, it was just a cash aid and that's it. No one has ever offered me childcare, not once. I didn't even know you can get childcare on CalWORKS until recently. No one has ever asked me. My career goes. The first time I got off CalWORKS, it was after a friend of mine told me we should get our CNA license. I did all that on my own for the. And for the welfare to work.

All they wanted us to do was to go to the career center, make resumes, and. And I didn't get a job from doing that. When I told them I wanted to get my CNA license, they told me, good for me. Good. That's good for me. But when I asked if they could pay for it for the program, they said no. They could only pay for books.

So I found a job as a security guard again by myself, with no help from the county, and saved up the money to put myself through school. Becoming a CNA was great for me. I always wanted to work in the medical field. We were raised around my grandparents, a lot of old people, my nana and papa and my great grandmother, who passed away six years ago. So from that. From the time I was a baby, we were always. We were always around old people. No disrespect. No disrespect. We were always around elders.

I always feel sorry. I always felt the need to be a caretaker and to be compassionate and to be there because a lot of the older people who don't have that, a lot of people in the. A lot of older people in the facilities, they don't have people who actually care for them and actually want to help them. And they can be, they can be alone sometimes. When me and my little sister was younger, we used to play doctors. We used to.

We used to do surgeries on our teddy bears. I would be the surgeon and she would be the assistant. We would cut the teddy bears open, put lotion and stuff, and sew them back up. And so it's like, it always, like me working in the medical field. No, just lotion.

It always stuck with me, and that's what I wanted. I always wanted to be in the medical field. I worked as a CNA for a few years, but when I got pregnant with my daughter, I took maternity leave. When that was over, I went back to work for a little bit, and shortly after that, I became pregnant with my son. So for the next few years, I didn't work so I could stay home with them. That's when I went back on CalWORKS.

Most recently, I've been trying to get help paying. I was trying to get help paying with my rent. I fell behind. I asked for housing support, got denied. You have to be on the chopping block. You have to be on a chopping block, like, literally this close to being kicked out before they. Before they want to help you. But sometimes when you need help, you can't get a hold of, you can't get a hold of your worker or anyone or no one will return your call.

If they're doing me like this. How many other families are they doing like this? I have to call and call and call, and sometimes I don't get a call back for weeks. I've been working at a job. I've been working at a job at Laguna Honda hospital in San Francisco as a CNA, commuting for commuting 4 hours a day.

I wake up every, I would wake up every morning at 350 to be on the train by 05:00 a.m. Then come back home, cook, clean, and take care of my kids and try to get three to 4 hours of sleep at night. Because of the stress of needing to pay my rent, I thought this job was the only choice I had to make ends meet. I'm barely able to see my kids. I'm constantly exhausted, and I'm still falling behind.

Now that I'm part of Parent Voices and have started meeting people and learning more about the system, I know a little bit of what to do now. I have my sister on the phone with me last time when I was trying to get help paying my rent. I called and she said, and this is at the point where they were trying to deny me. And so my sister chimed in and was like, well, we spoke with Director Kim Johnson, with Director Kim Johnson.

And that you guys are supposed to help families when they need help because, you know, when they need help, when they fall behind in rent. So the worker put us on hold, and he said, let me hold on. Let me talk to my supervisor. The very next day, I got a call from the worker at the county who told me I qualify for, for family stabilization program. They helped me pay my rent, my back rent from January, February, and March.

When I got the phone call, I literally fell to my knees. Me and my kids just got done being homeless. We were moving from house to house. My kids got split up. We were moving around everywhere. It did a lot to me. It did a lot to my kids. My oldest son, Dinero, has alopecia, and he completely went bald from everything that we were going through. I fight very hard for my children, for my children.

Based on what I went through growing up. I refused to go back to homelessness. So when they told me that they were going to help me pay those three months, I literally cried. The family stabilization program completely changed my life. Instead of spending, instead of spending 4 hours a day on the train, sleeping 3 hours a night and waking up and leaving before, leaving before work without seeing my kids, I've been able to find a job 20 minutes away.

I'm working nights so I can be there for my kids and now I can get some real sleep. I just want to get stability and balance for myself and my children and go back to school and better myself so I can find a long term job. I've considered phlebotomy, but my dreams is really to be a nurse. As a nurse, I want an education, I want a job, I want a career.

But if the programs, if programs like the family stabilization program are eliminated, I can't do that. The governor should not propose cutting us in this, in this program. First make sure you have a, you make sure you have assessed all other possibilities. If I was governor, instead of cutting billions of programs that help children, that help our future, I will look at other solutions. Like I've learned that the yacht owners who get a huge tax break, if they can afford a yacht, then they can afford to pay taxes too.

Final thoughts, Brianna.

I got four kids. One of them might need this help one day. Our future generation, 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 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 your feet and do it the right way, some people don't want to help now when they get a fellow.

So, Brianna, I gotta cut you off. Okay? Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Okay. I agree with you on the yacht owners. Okay. And I also recommend phlebotomy. A lot of fun.

Okay. That's my next step.

Thank you so much for sharing your remarks with us and I hope to see you on a ballot running for governor one day too.

Okay.

Okay. We're gonna move on to Western Center on Law and Poverty. Hi, Rebecca.

Okay. I wanna thank you for this hearing. The in depth attention to the CalWORKS program. First, a little background. 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 unable to manage their lives and who need government oversight to access cash assistance. As the program has evolved, supportive services have become a in order to provide CalWORKS families the tools they need to become economically self sufficient. First, I want to talk about the cuts to the safety net program, and I agree with the comments that you made.

It's a double cut to CalWORKS program. Not only are we proposing 300 million in permanent cuts to supportive services, but that 900 million that's being completely drained from the safety net reserve, which was established to protect CalWORKS and Medi-Cal in the event of an economic economic downturn is also being cut. As noted by the LAO, this use of the safety net reserve does not seem to be consistent with legislative intent since the reserve will not be used to protect the programs.

The first programmatic cut I'll discuss is family stabilization. This program supports families in crisis, and its elimination would remove key aid when families are most in need. Eliminating this program fails to recognize the barriers low income people face, barriers such as affordable housing options, mental health challenges, domestic violence situations, all which threaten the stability of a family. Without these services, there can be a host of negative outcomes, with homelessness being one.

Reflecting the state's own houselessness crisis, homeless assistance has grown to be the largest expenditure within the program, accounting for over 30% of the cost. The program provides rental assistance, security deposits, and payments for hotels, or assistance paying utility bills which will 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 will help 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 use and domestic violence services can include getting people to a safe location in counseling. By contrast, cuts have human consequences, pushing families past the brink.

This is life and death, as we saw with the tragic child death in LA, where 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 particular program, we believe this infant's tragic death was avoidable. These cuts pull the rug out from under these families, which can also cause unnecessary child welfare cases.

In fact, every dollar in TANF, the federal name for cowworks received by a family, saves $8 by preventing increases in child protective services, worsened child and parents health, and reductions in future education, employment and earnings. Because it is so effective and already fully expended, reimagine CalWORKS efforts target family stabilization as a program we need to strengthen, not eliminate. Next on the chopping block is the expand and subsidize employment program, which provides a key pathway out of poverty.

This program provides wage reimbursement to employers who offer on the job training to participants for six months to a year, and then participants transition into permanent unsubsidized employment. This program allows many parents to get jobs at the county, good union jobs and helps achieve positive program culture. Think of the powerful effect of having your worker as someone formally assisted who has true empathy for your situation and could help you see what you could achieve.

According to the LAO, in 2022-23, about 1240 individuals participated in this program. Monthly data from the Administration shows a significant increase in quarterly income after exiting the program compared to income before entering the program and even during the program. This is a valuable program which provides employment experience and should be retained. Briefly on the next couple of cuts. Employment services intensive case management, which provides that one on one assistance. According to the administration, about 10% of CalWORKS cases have been considered intensive.

Cuts to the number of hours allowed for this assistance will reduce much needed support for these participants. And lastly, on the cusp of the single allocation, we align with other speakers on the need for robust support for county administrators and their unionized workforce. 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 these very important programs. Thank you.

Thanks, Rebecca. Sonia?

Yes, thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators Sonia Schrager Russo at the Legislative Analyst Office. I'm going to try to face you all as much as I can, but bear with me here on the end. So, as mentioned, the governor has proposed ongoing CalWORKS reductions totaling $293 million across the four components that have been mentioned, starting first with the two proposed reductions that are programmatic in nature. So that's the family stabilization program and subsidized employment.

As has been mentioned, these reductions would begin in 23-24 and would eliminate all funding for both programs. One quick note, you may hear a number of different phrases to name the subsidized employment program. They all mean the same thing, expanded subsidized employment subsidized employment we only have one subsidized employment program in CalWORKS, even though it's called expanded.

So in terms of our comments on these proposals, in light of the very difficult budget situation, we recommend that the legislature consider how the elimination of both of these programs may or may not align with its overall long term goals for the CalWORKS program. As has been mentioned by other panelists, eliminating family stabilization may disproportionately and negatively impact CalWORKS families that are experiencing crisis situations, and eliminating subsidized employment may negatively impact the earnings and employment opportunities that some CalWORKS recipients have.

We would also recommend that the legislature exercise caution in planning for current year reductions. As has been mentioned, the Governor's Budget proposes reducing current year funding for family stabilization and subsidized employment in full. However, family stabilization specifically has been fully expended in recent years, and since counties are already spending this current year funding on the program, the proposed current year reduction is unlikely to materialize in full. In contrast, when we look at subsidized employment, however, this program has been underspent in recent years.

For example, in 22-23 only about 900, excuse me, 90 million of 134 million was spent for subsidized employment. And while participation and spending has been ramping back up since the pandemic, some funds may go unspent in the current year. So this program subsidized employment could present an opportunity to right size funding in some way if the legislature decides it doesn't want to eliminate funding for this program in its entirety.

So, turning next to the governor's proposed reductions to the single allocation, as has been mentioned, the single allocation is made up of federal and state funds and is allocated to counties to cover administrative and eligibility activities as well as employment services and a few other small components of the CalWORKS program. But largely, about one third of the single allocation is allocated to the administrative component and about two thirds is allocated to employment services.

However, as mentioned, these allocations are fundable, so counties can choose to use their employment services funds to cover administrative activities, and vice versa, which is something that many panelists have brought up. The second proposal is, as has been mentioned, to hold the case management intensive case management rate that counties receive within that employment services component flat year over year, rather than increasing that rate as has been planned. So that's the employment services component reduction.

If you'd like to see this illustrated in a figure, you can turn to page 13 on your agenda, where there's a copy of a figure that we previously published. I find it helpful to just see it as a whole component altogether. So, speaking about our comments on the single allocation reductions proposed by the administration, it's our belief that the potential impacts of these proposed reductions are not fully clear at this time.

Again, as has been highlighted by my colleagues, while the overall single allocation has been underspent in recent years, counties, again, as has been mentioned, consistently report using the employment services funds to cover those administrative costs, reporting that the costs of doing business have exceeded what's being provided in that administrative component. So we would therefore recommend that the legislature consider the potential adverse impacts of these reductions on the provision of employment services at local county level.

Although we don't have a, a great understanding of, as has been mentioned, if counties could use single allocation funds to cover those costs. And then finally, turning to the proposed withdrawal from the safety net reserve, this $900 million, again, this is the full balance.

This does appear inconsistent with the administration's overall proposed approach to using reserves, since the administration has proposed withdrawing only half of the budget stabilization accounts balance, constitutional balance, as is allowed during a budget emergency, and then the full discretionary balance, whereas it's proposed this full withdrawal from the safety net reserve.

In closing, we'd raise for the legislature that there are a few program areas across the budget where the governor has proposed ongoing cuts to established programs like we see here in CalWORKS, and you may also hear about similar proposals within child welfare, so that makes these proposals fairly unique in this way. However, given the difficult budget problem we're facing, ongoing reductions will be necessary somewhere in this budget. So for any proposed solutions that the legislature chooses to reject, it will need to solve for that portion of the budget problem elsewhere.

Yeah, I've got ideas. Where else we can question to you, Sonia. Did I hear correctly regarding the safety net reserve? 50% is allowed in statute. What did you.

So that is for the budget stabilization account, the other reserve that has been proposed to be drawn down?

Yes.

So 50% is being proposed from that?

Yeah. Great. Thank you so much. Okay, let's start with some questions. First, let me start with talking about the employment subsidy program. Subsidized employment program. I don't know who to direct this question to. Maybe, Director, do we know what types of jobs we are subsidizing? Sure.

Thank you for the question. It's a mix of employers that counties are developing that relationship with locally. So in some cases private, some cases nonprofit, some cases public agency. You heard some of the panelists reference that some are working directly for the county.

Right. And have work experience within those options. So it is a variety. It really depends on the county and the kind of economic context of opportunities that they have. But yeah, that varies amongst that.

Director, I don't know if you've heard, I've been hearing from some advocates. So there at times, some counties are subsidizing fast food jobs and jobs that really aren't intended to stabilize the family long term. Right. Do we have any oversight? Do we collect any data from counties on partner counties or which employer counties are partnering with?

There's a general plan that counties submit to the department related to how they're going to utilize the funds and how they're going to engage. I will tell you, part of our efforts, and Director Cubanksi referenced this in a few ways over the last few years, is to get away from not just any job, but jobs that have a career ladder, jobs that are going to actually reach those economic mobility opportunities.

And being focused on that, I think to the conversation here around supporting families that may have a higher intensity need and level that entry. Right. Subsidized employment is usually an entry level experience and really wanting to kind of get an individual familiar with kind of the environment of working, having that kind of consistency in expectations. So they certainly vary. But I will say that typically in subsidized employment, it's going to be more likely to be more of an entry level component, but overarchingly, in terms of the career pathways that we want to incorporate and have been incorporating, you heard me mention very, very briefly Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act.

Right. Over the years, as that has, those opportunities have expanded. We've wanted to make sure that a welfare to work plan could actually map to a career pathway in WIOA and again, having those career ladder opportunities. You heard that the panelists here speak eloquently to career healthcare pathways, for example. How do we get participants and families and CalWORKS engaged in that and having all of the entry level requirements to be successful? So more holistically, we are absolutely committed to having that broader array of opportunities again, meeting the needs and the goals of the family.

You know, my remarks are regarding a program that's being proposed to be cut, but hopefully not. But I'm very much interested in seeing a little bit more oversight from the department on who we partner with. You know, I think an overarching theme I've seen in my little short time here is a lot of money goes out, we don't know what's happening, oversight guidelines on who to partner with, data that we collect on that, just to really see are the dollars that we're investing in helping.

Maybe then later, when we have another hopefully never deficit, we can look at the efficacy of these programs and see, hey, look, these are the jobs that people are getting now. I received a letter from an entity in my district from neighborhood legal services agency where they hired a lot of the people on the stabilization, on the subsidized program. And the stories were just wonderful, intake, peer support and so forth.

And I'm just interested in ensuring that we're putting people in jobs that have a lot of super value and they have a latter career to it. My second question is where can we find data on which counties are fully spending the single allocation fund?

I believe we can follow up with that information to the committee. Yes, on county by county expenditure.

Okay. And then I know I've asked you, Miss Eileen, and I'm interested in hearing from the other panelists which ones we would prioritize. But from what I've heard so far from some stakeholders, and this is also my personal opinion as well, is I personally would like to prioritize the family stabilization and the subsidized employment programs out of these, out of all the proposed cuts, I would put those higher than everything else.

I'm wondering also if for the subsidized employment program, we could just fund it at a different percentage, not the full. Right. I think even the LAO mentioned that last time or a couple years ago, it was at $90 million. Matching that just so at least we can keep the program going a little bit further. I know it's underutilized, but a lot of that came because of the pandemic. It was hard for us to put people into those jobs. Difficult. The family stabilization program is over utilized.

That, if I'm not mistaken, counties dip into your other funds just to keep that going because it's so flexible and it puts people under a roof. And to LAOs point, if we're looking to save money in the out years, this doesn't directly save money on the out years on paper, but it could prevent people from falling into homelessness. Right. Which would, then we would have to fund in other subcommittees and so forth.

So in that way it does save money out in the out years for me. Unless I'm really looking at this wrong, which is possibility. I think those two pro two pro two programs have a lot of flexibility and also importance to stabilize our families. We don't know the consequences potentially for cutting the single allocation. We don't know yet. But I think I can really look at family stabilization and subsidized employment and look at the consequences that we come that we can see from that.

I'm interested in finding out how we fund or what funds the child poverty and family supplement account that we're going to be getting the grant increase from maybe department. Emily. Right.

I can definitely take that back and reach out to our realignment analyst. Yeah. I could tell you what that is funded for if you'd like.

So that is funded out of 1991 realignment, which is funded itself from a dedicated portion of state sales tax and VLF revenues. A certain, based on these complicated realignment formulas, there is a certain amount that is dedicated to that sub account every year of growth monies. When there are growth monies available. When those revenue sources grow and there is growth.

Yeah. It looks like we got a revenue growth from it, which is why we're able to do the 0.8%.

Exactly. So there's projected to be revenue growth in 91 realignment. And that is leading to a portion of that growth going to that sub account. And that is what triggers the grant increase.

Okay. I'll turn it over to my colleagues if they'd like to ask any questions. Senator Roth.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe you covered this. I've been concerned about workforce training for some time. We're going to do a last year or the year before, I forget which. We did a bill to try to link workforce training to make sure that the jobs that we're training people to do are actual jobs and that they secure employment in the fields for which we've spent money training them. A little bit disconnected from what we're doing here, but maybe not so much with respect to subsidized employment.

Do you work or do the agencies work with the workforce training boards in the regions around the state to try to identify, to the extent that those boards know, which is another issue, what jobs actually exist and whether they're career jobs and what sort of training is required and to try to assist those most vulnerable, that we're trying to help in securing employment that actually exists. If that's a fair question.

Yeah, thank you, Senator, for that question. And yes, just again, as I referenced that when the reauthorization occurred for the Workforce Innovation Opportunities act, the departments actually worked, Department of Social Services and Labor Agency, Employment Development Department, et cetera, had quite a few conversations to make sure exactly that was occurring. There were new measures within the WIOA opportunity around also who was being served and actually connection between TANF programs across the country and the WIOA efforts.

So the department did put out guidance at that time both around the opportunities to work together and partner a lot of assessments being done from the programs in that space locally that are very relevant to what's happening in our TANF programs. And so in addition, we're going to talk about in the next item a little bit about the CalWORKS outcomes accountability and review Director Cubanksi referenced, Calor outcomes framework.

We have a whole section within that evaluation that counties are doing related to economic and employment conditions, where we're looking to see some of those partnerships being linked to your point of what is kind of the investment in workforce, what are the needs of the employers and how do we make those relationships happen. So we certainly have put out a number of guidance documents and opportunity connections to make sure that's happening locally when counties are looking to create those partnerships with employers locally.

Well, what we're attempting to do, and in fact, the governor signed it, so at some point it'll be implemented, is create additional employer reporting so we can link employer reporting with the Franchise Tax Board and actually track trainees through the pipeline to actually get statistics at the end of the road, which would certainly perhaps help you help the people that you're trying to help. I'll be interested in hearing what you say in the next segment.

I will tell you that WIOA and the workforce development boards do not have those statistics today. We cannot tell whether people who are trained and if someone suggested to me the other day that we, we pass about $6 billion of all flavors of money through our budget for workforce development training, and yet we can't tell whether any of those dollars effectively resulted in someone getting a job for which they've been trained.

So maybe you have some data through your programs and your reporting that would be informative. I look forward to hearing that. But stand by. Maybe you can help me with our overarching effort here, bring some accountability to this area. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Love that. General. Stand by, Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize. I had other things that I had to do before I came to committee, but I'm glad I was able to catch this issue. I just have a question that is not really related to a specific item. Well, I can't say that either. It's a general question, basically, mainly for the LAO, I guess, who comes up with a methodology. Right. And I want to know that.

Is the governor come to you and give you marching orders that basically says, you know, we have to cut these departments and these services. Is it staff that makes those recommendations? I've been here since 2010 and it seems like if there's a budget deficit, the first people we go after are the most vulnerable members of our society, whether it's developmentally disabled, whether it's individuals on social services, food stamps, whatever. So I guess, I guess it'd be the Department of Finance.

And the reason why I'm asking that is because you're claiming that there's $900 million of, you know, there's $900 million of offsets. But you can't, from my understanding, point to any specifics about what you're really saving. And point, you know, if we cut $9 million, 900 million, almost $1.0 billion here, we can, we're going to save this, this and this, or there's no offset. So who comes up with the methodology? And how come you can't tell us what the $900 million is offsetting?

Emily, before you answer, Senator Grove. I mean, they've thrown Emily into the woods today. We've been, because we've been, I mean, I just apologize, Emily, but I just, I just grilled her on that.

Go ahead, answer. Because you weren't here and I'd like for you to hear.

Okay. And I didn't know that. And again, I apologize. Stuff I had to do before.

It's okay.

And that was not directed at you, Emily. Like, as. I'm not like attacking you. I'm attacking the process. Okay. Thank you.

It is a group effort. I will say between.

So we should bring them all to the wolves is what you're saying.

Agency, governor's office, the Department of Finance, the legislature. We listen to all sides. And, and it is not that we don't believe in the effectiveness of these programs, but we did have a budget shortfall to fill and have to make hard decisions. We're happy to hear alternatives to the cuts, proposed cuts we have in the Governor's Budget.

Okay. You just said you sit or you hear from all sides who or what organizations are telling you to make these cuts to the most vulnerable members of our society. Now we're not talking. I mean, I'm going to be, like, sarcastic. We're funding the wolf program, but we're taking money away from people's families. So I guess who is. Who is the per. Who are the groups or the people that are. When you say you meet with all sides that are saying, you got to take this $900 million, who are those people? I want to know who they are.

I cannot personally say who exactly it is that is making each decision in the budget.

So you can't or won't like, you don't know? Like, you don't know or you do know and you're not going to tell me? Sorry. Sorry.

A combination of, like, I personally don't know above my head the decisions that are made. I'm at the analyst level, so.

Okay. Who would know?

I can follow up with you on that information.

Okay. Because that's very important to me, just based on what you said. You listen to all sides. Can you tell me what sides you've listened to? Like, who are they? Who are those people in that sides meeting?

It's not sides. A conversation between the legislature and the administration has been happening and will continue to happen through may revision to enact a budget in the end in June. So conversations with your staff and as well as other people in the legislature.

So I'm not speaking for my colleagues, but I can pretty much guess that we've had conversations. I don't think it's us asking.

I think you might be speaking for us. I think.

Okay. Okay. Then I'm gonna take. I'm gonna take my colleagues. The chair's privilege. I'm speaking for my colleagues. We're not telling the governor to make these cuts. This came from him. So it's not all. So when you say all sides, it's not us. So who is us? Or who is. Who is. Who is these. Who is asking you? I want to know where it comes from. I want to know the methodology. Because every year there's a budget deficit.

They go after the developmentally disabled people, they go after poor families, and they go after CalFresh and all those things. They don't talk about. One year, they were spending $21 million when I was in the assembly to paint the towers white and red. Right. Don't spend the $21 million on the white and red towers. I know it's important, but, you know, probably not as important as this. So that.

And I'm not. And this is not. Please don't take this as something personal to you. I think you're a very lovely person. You're always been kind. You've always responsive. But I want to know the methodology, and I want to know the offsets for the $900 million, and I want to know the all sides and I want to know who's telling you to take these cuts. That's what I want to know. Is that okay?

It's great. I wish y'all were here earlier when I asked these questions.

Well, what was the answer? Just read the answer you gave to the chair, I guess, or I can watch a video.

But no, I got no answer.

Oh, you didn't?

I didn't get an answer.

And you're the chair.

I didn't get an answer.

Well, I'm not going to get an answer then if you're the chair.

And I really relayed my frustration regarding not getting an answer.

If the chair and I and my colleagues here wanted to meet with somebody to tell us that answer, who would we meet with? Just give us a name.

Emily Marshall, Department of Finance. And I can follow up with you after with your stuff.

How do we get it on public record.

Right now? I suppose. But I can follow up with you with certain members of the administration to have discussions with.

And I'm not trying to throw. I just want to know. I'm not trying to throw anybody under the bus. I just want to know the methodology and I want to know the offset. Because if you're going to take money from the people that are in this audience or not all of them, but if you're going to take money from them that you're going to spend money over here on, frankly, I almost cussed, stuff that doesn't matter to 99.9% of Californians. I want to know why and I want to know who's saying it.

Madam Chair, perhaps I can suggest that if the question is clear, that they'd be able to submit it in writing directed to you with a copy to the members.

I mean, I would love that, but I think, you know, Senator, our colleagues have been asking this question. Just yesterday in the full Budget Committee, Senator Blakespear had that question to Department of Finance as well. Right. She was asking, how do we determine and rank programs and what gets cut? And it's hard for me to believe that in that side conversation or meeting that on the whiteboard was children's and families.

Like, I find that very hard, that someone took a post it during their exercise and said, cut child and family CalWORKS. So in my mind, that's what I see, that? That's how we determined that we were going to cut this program.

I want to know who that is.

So we've all been trying to figure out is how did we get to that methodology? Does that methodology need to change somehow? Like, who is punching the numbers? What person far, far away under a rock that's probably never met a single person in their life said, I don't know what a child is. I don't know what vulnerable families are. This program seems like it's something we should cut.

I'm just suggesting, Madam Chair, that then perhaps. Perhaps we need to extend an invitation to the director of the Department of Finance or other appropriate individuals to come and address that issue.

And, you know, I told Emily, so sorry, that's. It's you. But I told Emily, I was like, we knew what topic we were gonna get discussed. Was gonna get discussed. Why not bring someone that had the answers to our questions? And I know there's a full team of Department of Finance here. Is there no one else that has an answer as to how we got to this. Maybe we might have a great.

Yeah. Aanam Khan, Department of Finance. Just on the safety net reserve portion of that. So we're proposing to withdraw the additional 900 million. Specifically, the Governor's Budget projected an increase the 499 million General Fund in budget year for the Medi-Cal caseload compared to the 2023 budget act.

And then in specific to the CalWORKS program, we had a 2.3% increase for caseload CalWORKS compared to the 2023 Budget act. And then a 3.9% increase in the budget year compared to the 2023 Budget Act.

499 increase Medi-Cal. I don't even want to hear about that because we have the MCO tax. Like, that should fund all of the Medi-Cal side.

No, they're putting it in the General budget. I thought.

But put in the General budget to offset the 499.

Okay.

Right. We have billions of dollars in the MCO tax. There's no reason that the safety net reserve should be even used a dollar for the Medi-Cal side. We could use full. The $900 million for CalWORKS MCO tax is more than enough to cover that. So I heard 1.2 billion is for CalWorks this year that we're including in the budget. Are you telling me that if. If we keep the $900 million in the safety net reserve, that 1.2 billion will go down to. What is that? $300 million?

So, um, these are just.

That's for single. Sorry, whatever it is for CalWORKS. 7 billion. So sorry. So 7 billion. That won't break. It was too low. 7 billion. So if we keep that 900 million in the fund, that 700, that 7 billion would decrease by 900 million.

So we can't speak to any, I guess, hypothetical situations, but these are just what the Governor's Budget proposes. And like I think my colleague Emily mentioned, we are more than happy to have conversations with the legislature in partnership to find sort of solutions to.

I don't know if that's a hypothetical.

I just want to ask and not to bounce off the chair. And I apologize, Madam Chair, for the interruption. That's what we're trying to get at. The 900 million. What's it offsetting? Nobody in this room as smart as. I mean, I barely have a high school diploma, and I figured out some of this. Nobody in this room that works in this stuff all day long, every day and presents this to us to vote on, can share with us what the $900 million offsets. And to the chair's question, does it decrease the $7 billion? Nobody.

So as mentioned previously, the $900 million does offset increasing costs in the MediCal program and then increased caseload costs in the CalWORKS program.

2.3%?

Correct, in current year.

Is $900 million dollars 2.3%?

But MediCal caseload is down.

Caseload costs are increasing by 499 million compared to the 2023 Budget Act.

So I was right, tt was 1.2 billion General Fund for cowworks. So it's not 7 billion, it's 1.2 billion General Fund. So I don't think this is hypothetical speaking. Like, if the Fund is meant to cover CalWorks, if we have 1.2 right now on the budget proposed, and I, we're like, no, you're not gonna get anything from the safety net reserve. Does that, in theory, it shouldn't even theory, like, it's one plus one would decrease 1.2 to $300.0 million for CalWORKS.

Because if the Fund is being used to offset the cost for CalWORKS and we say no to that, don't use it, then that means we would then have a budget proposal of $300 million for CalWORKS.

Sorry, could you repeat that first part?

So the proposed budget right now says $1.296 billion for CalWORKS General Fund. Okay. If the Legislature says no and rejects the proposal of depleting the Fund, would the Administration come back and say, well, you said no to this. So that means that we only now have $300 million for CalWORKS because we were using the $900 million as part of the 1.2.

So in that instance, because we are facing a budget shortfall, we would need to find other program areas to address that shortfall. We would need to find other sources of revenue, too.

If we don't. If we don't

Then we'd have a budget deficit.

No, then we just would have $300 million. Or we would, for CalWORKS, or we would guess try to find other places.

Yeah, we would need to find other places.

We would need to Fund.

Correct. Correct.

Key thing, we would need to find another place to cut. Let's find another place. I'm sure there's other things out there. And it's interesting. Since 2010, I think my colleague from Stockton has been here since 2010-12 something like that. 12. Every year we have a budget just fit. This is the first with two governors, this is the first thing that gets cut. So is that like, strategic? Just curious. Is that like standard operating procedure strategic? I'm really.

This budget, with all this has made me think about previous budgets and I want to know the methodology, because out of the gate, this is the first cuts. And then is it like, oh, well, we gave you that, so now you have to fund this, or, you know, because, you know, we're all going to fight for it. And we always, usually win on these issues because it's protecting the most vulnerable members of our society. But is that why you guys do it?

Like, what's the story strategy behind this and the methodology? I want that in writing, too, Madam Chair, if that's okay, because you're going to be here in 12 years.

Should we go in with you when you have this side conversation? Should we be there? Locked arms?

We can make time.

You know, we will roll with you. We'll roll with you.

I appreciate the partnership of the Legislature. Always.

Kevin might answer this question. Kevin, you got an answer for these questions? Okay, Senator.

Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the leeway for my behavior. And I apologize. This was not directed at you. I just don't get it and I want to answer. Okay, thank you.

Okay, maybe Department of Finance or maybe LAO. Question. So, going back to single allocation. Emily, strap in. And regarding the single allocation, counties have returned already $300 million in unspent for the last five years. Do we anticipate. Even so, let me. Sorry, I gave the wrong number. We did early action to take back $288 million. Right. Do we anticipate any further unspent from the 2021-22 single allocation that could help this year?

The amount for the early reversion for 22-23 we don't anticipate additional dollars.

Okay.

And 336 million, I believe, is the.

No, this is from 21-22.

288 from 21-22.

Okay.

We don't anticipate additional dollars for 21-22.

And then how do we anticipate scoring current year savings in the 2324 from. How are you scoring current year savings in the 2324 from cutting, founding, stabilization and subsidized employment. So these programs are currently being served right now. And I think someone mentioned this earlier. So how are we scoring current year savings, given that it's currently serving some people?

So, yes. Appreciate the question. I mean, I think the conversation we want to continue to have is that the savings were scored point in time based on projections. So we'd need to. We had current appropriations out to counties. So we need to make adjustments in may revision that better reflect what the actual expenditures were.

Okay. We're going to close with the panel, and I don't know if, Miss Eileen, you've thought about my question, or if anyone else has thought about my question how you would prioritize these.

I have, and I'll just say I respectfully have sat in many of these different positions throughout my long career in the Administration and where your lovely staff are sitting. And so I guess I would just respectfully say that I would not prioritize any of these for cuts. I would look elsewhere in the budget. I think you all have had the conversation already. The Legislature created that safety net Reserve exactly for this purpose, to avoid this moment in time, and here we are.

I get that it's easy for me to say it's a bad budget year, and we've got to find cuts somewhere and find them somewhere else. But I mean that very sincerely. We're having conversations among our Members to shake our couch cushions, too. So, you know, we're not suggesting that if there are unspent monies out there to contribute, we shouldn't be contributing those. But these are the most vulnerable children and families combined with child welfare. If this isn't what we do as government, what do we do?

And I don't know how we. The single allocation I get, it's not sexy. It sounds like admin. These are people and services that help our most most vulnerable and needy families and children in the deepest poverty facing unimaginable barriers. And I just. I can't say that any one of these programs is more or less important than the other. They're all vital, vital services and supports to these families, and I don't know what we do without them. It's not helpful. I get it, but it is true.

Okay. Does anyone have any prioritization they'd like to share, if not just to sum this up, we're angry. We don't like it.

We don't like it. But is there ways to Fund it at some version, some amount? I think. I spoke about the employment one. Around 90 million. I shared my priorities in these. I did rank them, you know, those two programs above all the other ones. And should the subsidized employment move forward, as I hope it should. As it should, I like guidelines from us to the counties on who we contract with and what jobs we're putting people in. I think that part's really important.

And if we're gonna deplete this Fund, then we should Fund every single Cowworks program. But I know I'm here for compromises. So if you want to take half, let's Fund the rest. You know, let's don't hit this community with two punches. Like, this is a Ko right now. We need to find a different way to go nine rounds and not end at the first round, because this is just knocking everyone out. We good on this panel? Okay. Thank you so much for your cooperation. Emily, do you get a break?

I do not.

oh, okay.

Madam Chair, just real quick. And no answers, no nothing. I don't need anything. I'm just gonna let you know I'm asking my colleagues or my staff, I want to put a list of the most obscene things that we're funding in this budget, and we will find that money and give you a list.

I definitely have a list. Yeah. Okay. There's things in here. All right. Issue number two is the federal Calworks pilot. Program Director is joining us back again. We have Sonia still with us from Lao, and we're going to be joined by 21 advocate and then a representative from Grace and child poverty, our number one guest here, Andrew. Okay, we're going to kick it off with you, Director.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Kim Johnson, Department of Social Services. This is an exciting opportunity that we have in front of us, and as you know today, the work participation rate is the one singular metric in the CalWORKS program that's used to measure performance. And we have, together, the Legislature and the Administration and many interested parties, created a framework and an alternative in California to have a much more robust and comprehensive way to measure the success of the program and the resources provided through it.

As your agenda outlines, the federal Fiscal Responsibility act of 2023 allows up to five states to participate in a pilot to promote accountability and test alternative benchmarks for work and family outcomes. In lieu of the work participation rate, if California's application is accepted, the state would not be subject to the WPR and any associated fiscal penalties for the duration of the pilot.

Again, the Department of Social Services Legislature, Administration, we've been working a long time to try to influence this metric at the federal level, so, again, we are grateful to see this opportunity in front of us. As I referenced on the earlier panel we have together put forward the California or CalWORKS work opportunity, excuse me, outcomes and accountability review, or what we reference as calor. It has three components, performance indicators, a county calwork self assessment, and a Cal Work system improvement plan.

And this framework really is a much, again, more robust way. And I'll just give you a few examples of the ways in which our current Cal or measures performance. Participant engagement. How are those families participating in the program? Participation in education, skills, service delivery, how are the referrals to childcare and housing being accessed and at what rates, barrier removal, mental health services, substance abuse, domestic abuse, etcetera. Educational attainment, employment.

To Senator Roth's comment, we are looking at employment rate of CalWORKS participants wage progression over time, post CalWORKS employment rates, as well as subsidized employment and unsubsidized employment rates, program entries and exits, and also family and child well being. So again, a much, much more robust array than just the singular metric of work participation. And we have that framework in place. We are involved right now in a five year cycle. That cycle will complete in June of 2026.

And again, we plan to actually apply to participate in this pilot. Your agenda on page 19 outlines the timeframe. We are waiting right now in the spring for the guidance from the Federal Government and the application itself. States are to be selected in this summer, and the pilot will launch in October of this year. So again, it's coming soon. And again, are interested to the Committee's in question are related to alternatives.

Again, I've referenced to you some of the measures that we have in place for family stability and well being. And so, for example, there are measures that assess the provision of relevant supportive services, like I mentioned, childcare, again, educational attainment, and so on. So again, we do have a series of measures today in place that are alternatives to the work participation rate.

The Committee also asked, we had a report due to the Legislature last year where we were able to bring in many interested parties in the fall of 22 develop recommendations, kind of before the pilot even we knew it existed, right? We were ahead of the game and thinking through what alternatives could exist for the WPR. And we did publish that plan. And the Committee asked, what were some of the recommendations from those that we heard of?

And again, your agenda as well on pages 22 and 23 to outline a strong desire from the workgroup of repealing this WPR, looking at accountability in the form of performance measurements, adopting reforms for increased supports such as looking at reducing sanctions and reducing the financial impact of those sanctions.

We also had an appendices in the report that went into some of the additional recommendations from the workgroup, accountability tied to program goals and family outcomes, aligning changes to the overarching values of the program, and again more on changes to sanctioned policy. So we are again interested, eager to look at this application and apply and demonstrate that there is a better way to demonstrate the success of the families participating in our program and the services provided to them.

So we get automatically selected. We just have to apply.

We are not automatically selected, but I will say that we are in great position, having already begun implementation of an alternative framework that puts us in a really great position in terms of our ability to be successful in our application.

Is the Federal Government choosing a selected amount of sites? Five. Five. Do you know how many states are applying for this?

I can't tell you how many states are applying, but I can tell you that California continues to have the most robust TANF program in the country. I just actually literally left from DC yesterday, sharing again some of the ways in which we've constructed our program in the support. And again, I know the Committee also asks about the impact of these proposed reductions in our being a viable candidate for the pilot.

And I will just say, because again, we are not at this time proposing changes to our framework and the array of services are still available. We will still, all budget decisions pending have the most robust array than any other state in the country.

Because I had that thought, too. I was like, won't we be measuring our failures? I mean, if we cut all these programs, what do we.

To the point of the Committee, in terms of being able to demonstrate and really understand the components that we have built in this program and what their value is? Our framework that we put together really does give us a better ability to do that today than we had, let's say, 10 years ago. So to the point, right. How many families are experiencing housing instability? How many are able to access childcare? What are the other components that we have? We're certainly in a different place today than we've been historically in the past to be able to tell that story.

Okay, go ahead.

I have a question. The previous discussion that we had that was very robust.

If that submission to us as a Legislature is successful to cut those programs, doesn't that affect the outcome of the measurable goals that the Federal Government is putting on us to meet those goals, those programs that are in this $900 million cut program or cut aspect of the budget, if those programs are cut, this program that you're talking about applying for the Federal Government, where we eagerly want to participate with these five states, cutting those programs that we just had this robust conversation over, it disqualifies, not disqualifies it, but that's what they're going to measure us on, how good we are at those things and we're cutting those programs.

How do we explain that? To me? You're like saying, we're going to participate. We're so excited, and this is not, it's not accusatory. We're going to participate. We're so excited, but we've cut all those programs so you can't measure us. I mean, I'm kind of being sarcastic and.

No, I appreciate the question, Senator. And again, our actual framework to evaluate the success of our TANF program in California is in place. We are not proposing to change that. Yes, it is true that it is reflective of the components that we have built in our program. And so in terms of outcomes that we want to see not only access to services, but what were the long term impacts to earning. And again, I would just say our framework is inclusive of work, but it's certainly above and beyond that singular metric.

No offense, Emily, but Emily and all of her sides are cutting those programs that you're talking about, the TANF program, it's affected. Is that program affected by the cuts that are proposed in the Governor's Budget?

We believe we will still be a very viable contender as a state applicant in the federal pilot, irrespective of the final decisions of the budget component, because we, again, still have CalWORKS home visiting. We have substance abuse and mental health. We have, again, our cash grants. The Federal Government is actually not specifically outlining the array that California has built. The Federal Government is trying to understand, is there an alternative framework to evaluate the effectiveness of programs without just using the work participation rate? So we do still have additional supports within our CalWORKS program that will make us a viable candidate.

Okay. I was just curious because I thought it was the way I read it and the measurable items that will be judged on to participate in this program. The last panel, we just cut all these programs or made severe adjustments to them. So I'm glad you clarified that. Thank you.

I might need further clarification. And I got my stress ball out today because I'm feeling it today. It's a little rough. Okay. So I know it's not necessary for us to apply. To be able to apply for this program. It's not based on for the pilot, it's not based on the programs that we have or don't have.

However, if we don't have those programs and we're measuring outcomes and we remove a lot of programs that stabilize families, won't that further push families out, you know, more into poverty or, you know, just. That's the part I'm worried about.

No, appreciate the point. I mean, again, I would just say, again, I recognize that my predecessor, 10 years ago when family stabilization was being proposed, certainly likely made the case. Right. The need for the program is to look at the families that have additional supports needed. Kind of above and beyond what other families might. And so I appreciate that that's the intent behind those programs, to truly stabilize and support those who need more intensive case management. That's the design.

So what would you say, Director? This pilot moves forward, it's going to be collecting data. What are we looking at? What programs are we going to look at? I know you mentioned access to childcare, so forth. Is it how long they're in the program? Are they maxing out through 60 months?

Sure. There are eight domains through our Cal or metrics. And maybe I'll just also start with the overarching framework of outcomes we're looking for. Short term, what do we expect of those participating in CalWORKS? That family and children have their basic needs met. They're increasing their activity in attendance and various things, and they are increasing satisfied with the program. They themselves believe that they are benefiting from the program. Medium term improved well being, improved goal achievement degree certificate, achievement barrier mitigation, increased employment and improved wages.

And long term, we are trying to achieve persistent employment with increased wages, overcoming periods of adversity, our economic loss, reduced intergenerational poverty, reduced need for income supports, and a positive career trajectory. That's our overarching kind of theory of change, our logic model to our metrics. And again, eight domains, participant engagement, participation, service delivery, barrier removal, educational attainment, employment, program exits and reentries in family and child well being. And each of those has metrics under each of them.

And we do have a dashboard that you can look at, even by county as well as state level, in terms of how, for example, I use childcare as access, how many of the families are able to successfully access childcare, housing supports? Again, I mentioned some of the employment metrics as well. And again, it's in the context of what I said is the overarching kind of evaluation of the program that will be with the self evaluation and the program improvement plan.

So we should be looking at over time, how counties are doing. I also say that as part of our five year cycle, the state will be coming back to establish baseline thresholds for each of these measures. So we'll actually say we believe statewide the metric and the measure should be x, and then we'll be able to have some comparison across counties and meeting that.

And that's, again, where the program improvement plan becomes so key to being able to make improvement in areas that a county might need to. So that's the framework we've designed.

Okay, Sonia, turning over to you.

Thank you. Sonia Schrager Russo with the Legislative Analyst Office so, as mentioned, this pilot is set to begin in October of this budget year, and while we do, as Director Johnson mentioned, anticipate that additional, well, information about the pilot will be available very soon, there are many questions that still remain in terms of what the pilot will entail.

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, if selected, and to also consider the pilot participation with an eye towards the currently unknown elements of the pilot.

We therefore recommend that the Legislature consider the potential trade offs of pilot participation, such as the time and effort that participating may entail as a state, versus the potential short and long term benefits for California. The pilot does seem aligned with the recent legislative interest in expanding the overall goals of the CalWORKS program and the measures that we're looking at it with, and it also seems to be an opportunity to shift some of the state's focus towards those other desired outcome measures or goals.

It may present an opportunity, as has been mentioned by Director Johnson, to demonstrate whether the alternative measures to the WPR might be better for measuring state TANF program success, which could in turn be beneficial for California in the future if the Federal Government decides to adopt other measures outside of the WPR or in addition to the WPR.

We therefore would recommend that the Legislature consider how the Governor's Budget proposals, especially the proposed reductions to family stabilization and subsidized employment, as has been mentioned a number of times, might impact our application and our overall performance within the pilot.

Again, as has been mentioned, eliminating these programs may limit the types of programs and services and outcomes that California could not only highlight in its application for the pilot, but long term, if it were to be selected, if it were to be selected to participate, how we might perform along those measures, since some of them align both with family well being as well as employment outcomes.

However, again, as has been mentioned, we don't have comprehensive outcome information on these programs, so it is difficult to determine exactly how significant of an impact that these eliminations would have.

So can you go back to the part you said something regarding we should leverage, I think. Did you use that word? No offset trade offs?

Was it the tradeoffs? Yes. So something that has caught our attention is that, again, this starts in this budget year. It's set to begin in October, and we still yet to have a number of different pieces of information about what the pilot will entail. So we don't, as Director Johnson had mentioned yet know exactly what the application will look like if selected to participate. Will any costs be brought about from participating? What exactly participating means for us as a state?

There's not much information at all about the pilot and what it will be like to be a participating state. So that does concern us that that is a decision that will need to be made by October of this budget year.

Okay. Thank you.

If I can, Madam Chair, I just offer. The Federal Government did release a request for information related to this pilot, and the Department of Social Services did respond to that request. They were looking for recommendations on the kinds of things they should think about. So we again demonstrated what our measures look like and some opportunities. So hopefully that was an influencing factor as we are set to look at the application. But did want to offer.

Do we anticipate some costs associated to participating in this pilot?

We don't. I mean, we've been looking carefully at really the data component. As I mentioned as part of the pilot, the work participation rate isn't applicable to the states that participate. Therefore the fiscal penalty wouldn't. What we really want to understand, though, is kind of what happens post pilot, is there need for data entry in the case that we have to return those kind of.

So again, kind of to be determined at this point, not having the specific guidance, but not necessarily anticipating any significant costs at this stage.

So if there is any cost that won't be until the 2031. 2032 time.

To be determined. Again, partly that we're not anticipating a cost is somewhat of an assumption that our framework that exists will be valid. Right. That's part of what our assumption is in that space. But in terms of cost to the state, it essentially any pilot that's selected will not be subject to fiscal penalties. So we know that if we are selected, we will not be subject to fiscal penalties related to the work participation requirement. Is there other data that they're asking for that we don't collect? Is there other steps or process things that we need to figure out? That's what's to be determined in terms of seeing the full application.

Okay. And then in looking on page 19, the timeframe for all this, the pilot operates and the data reported during 2031. 2032, that's right. As we're looking to reimagine CalWORKS, am I safe in thinking that changes to CalWORKS won't happen until after the pilot is over?

I would say that we would like to continue to engage with you as we have over the past few years, in continuing to partner the Administration and Legislature. We've been making some significant changes to our program policy areas like family stabilization, where we're ensuring that families that are participating in CalWORKS and also part of the child welfare system have the opportunity to keep supports on.

Is it a different family stabilization program?

It's family reunification. Excuse me, family stabilizations, in my mind, rightfully so. Family reunification is what I was referencing. So asset limit changes. We've been making a number of policy changes together over the last several years. We'd like to continue, as we're learning from Cal or otherwise, to have those conversations. I don't think it at all prohibits us from making changes in the.

Thank you so much. Okay, we're going to turn over to joy.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

That is, if I could just ask. So the LAO was saying, we don't know everything that'll be in this. And so I guess, what is your response to that? Because we're already having trouble struggling. We're already saying we're to take money from that, and that's what we already know, that we provide and try to measure for outcomes. Sounds like we struggle with that still. And so now we're going to apply for something new. And I get afraid that we're chasing grants like nonprofits often do. Right.

So then you apply and you've got something else, and then there's different things you have to measure or focus on and let some other things go. And so I guess my question is, how do you respond to that? And I heard you say that the feds like our framework. And so you're thinking a lot of what we say should be, will be what we're measuring.

But, like, what does Mississippi do who might be in there, too, and we might find ourselves having to Fund things that aren't as applicable to California.

Sure. Thank you for that question, Senator. The pilot is really about demonstrating what should be measured as a demonstration of outcomes for families experiencing poverty that are participating in the TANF program. That's really what the pilot's about. It's about what is the universe of outcomes for us. Again, it's an addition to work, right. That we should be looking at that demonstrate progress of the investment that states make in TANF. So it's not necessarily something that we're seeking dollars or resources for.

It's really about being able to demonstrate there's a way in which our evaluatory framework, our metrics, our process is much more representative of what we'd expect families that are participating in our program to achieve. And that's what we're really demonstrating through the pilot. It's less about obtaining additional dollars in any way, etcetera. It's being able to say it's not just work, it's work and all of the mitigation to be able to engage in work. It's about attaining education. It's about accessing resources. And that's what we're demonstrating through the pilot or hope to be.

Okay, so you think the trade off is good for women in General?

I think our opportunity to demonstrate that work is not the only way to demonstrate success is a great opportunity to pursue.

I may have missed this because I was momentarily distracted, but earlier on, you were talking about measuring employment rates and wage rates, and I assume among all of the other laudable goals, one is to lift families and wage earners out of poverty.

And so I guess my basic question is this, are we in the pilot, if this is appropriate for what you're doing in the pilot, are we going to track placement training and placement in career jobs or just training and placement in any job, if that's a fair question.

Thank you for that question, Senator. So I think, yes, what you heard me reference in terms of employment is not only what is their rate of employment of those participating in CalWORKS, what is their wage progression, what is their employment rate post exit of CalWORKS. And then, of course, looking at subsidized and unsubsidized employment. Those are all metrics currently that we are tracking as part of our framework.

We do have the ability, through our partnership with EDD, to be able to look at the actual employment type. And so that could be something that not only is brought forward through the county assessments that I referenced as part of the framework, but something the state could be looking at, too.

So we can actually say to the questions earlier on the panel, what are the types of jobs, the types of employment, and again, where we see wage progression, for example, what do we know about what made that successful in terms of the opportunity.

So we'll be able, it isn't at an aggregate level, but I think we'll be able to look more closely, certainly at the county level, but even further, to be able to tell the story a little bit more clearly about what made that opportunity successful.

Well EDD, as I mentioned before, the EDD is currently working on how to implement, I think, I can't remember my own bill numbers, but I think it's Senate Bill 755. It has to do with workforce development and data collection, and the Governor signed it, so it is in the statute, and we have to figure out how to make it work.

So perhaps you might want to, when you're in your conversations with EDD and in their redesign of the information that they collect from employers regarding workforce needs and how to make the lines cross, maybe that'll help you in the pilot program, because obviously, from my perspective, you know, we want to make sure that not only that people have jobs, but they have career jobs, because that's the only way to stop the cycle

Appreciate that and glad to follow up with you on that. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Joy.

Hi.

Welcome. You may begin with your remarks.

Good morning. My name is Joy Perrin. I'm a spark leader from Project Spark from Laney Community College. I'm here to share my testimony, I call it from these programs that have helped me out and my daughters. Sorry. When I first was fleeing from a bad environment that I needed to get my children out of, they were three in one. I went to the welfare office to get on cash aid and food stamps to see what they can do to help.

I also enrolled in Laney Community College to start off this new life for me and my children to get a successful life. It was great. Going to school, trying to get childcare at the same time, I was homeless. Although leaving from that situation, it was very difficult. Dealing with mental health, trying to go to school. I was bringing my kids to class because I couldn't have time to find childcare.

So all that I wish I had in order while I went to the welfare office the first time. So I went back in desperate need of housing, finding a place to stay, wondering where we were going to sleep that night, cars or a couch as a family. So went back to the warfare office in desperate need, practically crying, underweight, under 90 pounds. I was trying my best. Failing in class, trying. All you do is try to try to do a better life.

That's what we come here for. And so they told me that they'll have someone call me for housing. I was very unsure. I didn't have a lot of hope because I hear stories back then and now that they don't get the housing help and no one calls them. A couple weeks later I did get a call. It was family stabilization program and I wasn't sure who they were. They said housing, and I dropped everything.

And I knew this was going to be the opportunity for me and my children. It was wonderful. A couple months later, we were able to be in an apartment, have dance parties. I was finally able to cook them food, a warm dinner. We had food stamps. But that was just a survival of the cash, was just a survival having a place to stay and be home. Be able to go to sleep.

For my mental health, it was just wonderful. Be able to do my homework, go put them to sleep. Although the semester already ended by the time I got my housing, I failed my classes. It was very hard to pick myself back up. But I thank God that I was resilient. I was also trying so hard not to be sanctioned, trying to stay on top of everything, juggling everything, keep my head above waters with these young girls that I am trying to be a role model for.

So I went back, I said, no, this was the opportunity. This housing was the opportunity. These programs gave me the opportunity. So I'm going to give my children the opportunity to show them what they can do. And so I went back. Fast forward now. I got my associate's in science waiting on a radiology program. While I wait for the radiology program, I'm not wasting any time on these programs. I'm working on my kinesiology to transfer for a bachelor's degree, and I'm not stopping.

I'm encouraging my children. I grew up in poverty myself, and I never knew these resources. My family, my parents didn't get these resources. They didn't know of them. And now that I know of them, I'm sharing with my children. Hey, you could be somebody. You could speak at Capitol Hill. My children came with me last time I was here, and they were amazed that this is where we could be. Probably doesn't have to have our name.

Did you bring them this time?

No, I did it. It was a little stressful, but we still made it. And they got to see and probably doesn't have to have our name on it. Yes, we grew up in it, but we are advocates. They are gonna be advocates. Changing two generations at a time. Failing those classes, I didn't know that I was gonna keep going. It was up for the housing. I had housing. They gave me resources that gave me the resilience to keep going.

Joy, tell me more about the sanctions. What that does to you.

It's very nerve-wracking. So if you're not meeting your hours, welfare to work is one of the employment activities that you do, and you get a certain amount of hours. With me, my children were underage, so I only had to do 20 hours. But it's still nerve-wracking. When you were homeless and you don't have childcare, and you're trying to juggle all these things at once. And I was so stressed out, crying, calling my eligible worker, please, I'm sorry. Life is happening.

I'm trying to get my paperwork turned in. Please don't cut me. And so it was just another thing to have to worry about, to stress about when your main focus should be on the successful life that you're making and the path that you're taking. So being sanctioned. Thank God I was never, thank God I was able to get and talk with my workers and make it happen. But there are a lot of cases at the school Laney College even they're scared of being sanctioned. They can't do it.

Even the fear, and I hear a lot of fear and so they're like, we can't do this anymore. We have to go get a job. We're not going to be able to do what we really want to do because they're scared. It's the fear and there shouldn't be any fear when there's resources. They should be help. We shouldn't be hurting while we're getting the help.

Any final thoughts Joy? Any final thoughts?

Maybe getting help by the supporting by the counties, really supporting these programs and using what they need for there.

Thank you so much, Joy. I appreciate it. Thank you for sharing your story. I know it takes a lot room with strangers to share what you've gone through and your bravery. I really appreciate you coming today. I found it when we were going to talk about this, I was reminded of several reports that sometimes have to be submitted to us.

And I think in the first Department today on child support services there was a report that was due March and we're not getting into May, but no one gets sanctioned here. We don't get sanctioned. Right. It's just maybe a couple words from the legislators, we'll say some stuff, but they don't get sanctioned. And then we'll go, we'll get the report later. Why are we sanctioning our most vulnerable, you know, and this pilot program Director, you hit it on the note, such a great opportunity. Right?

But I don't want a report just to have a report. Right. And I don't think you want that either, like the action behind it, to really reimagine and step away from a punitive approach. I think for everything in California we're really stepping away from this punitive approach because sanctions, whether they're not coming down, create such anxiety and fear in the individual is what I heard from you, Joy. And I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's what I hear.

I heard from you and I hear from a lot of other people in that space.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Andrew. Oh, so go ahead, Senator.

I just have an offset question. Your story is tremendous and I thank you for being that person who excels beyond the barriers and I don't want to say deals with life. That's a horrible thing to say. But you excelled beyond barrios to be a role model for your girls and that speaks volumes of who you are. So. And I agree with the chair on the sanctions with, I don't want to say someone like you. It is really trying to change your life.

How do you, where's the balance? Like, so, and the only reason I'm asking you this question is because you have the lived experience. None of us up here have that lived experience. So, and you mentioned that when you talk to other parents in that situation at school that the fear of being sanctioned or being cut off or not having this because not meeting a goal. And then the Chair made the comment, when we don't meet it, we just meet it next week.

But where's the balance for the people who may take advantage of the system and need those sanctions in order to keep them on the track? You are obviously, I'm not going to say overachiever, but you are, you are meeting those standards. You're setting a role model. Pardon me? Yes, self-motivated. You're self-motivated and you are doing these things and you're doing it right. And that's evident by what you just said.

And I applaud you for that because I, my mom was a single mom and raised five kids. We used to steal potatoes out of the farm fields to eat. Right.

She made potato soup. I get it. Never homeless, but get it. So I guess my, my thing is, is that what, how do you, how do you, how do I balance, how do I balance as a Legislator the issue that you're facing because you're being self-motivated, but then the person who is not doing what you're doing and doesn't really is just interested in what they're getting, if that makes sense. Is there a balance from your perspective?

From my perspective, I would say I had a lot. I am grateful for the workers that I did have, the eligibility workers, the ones that took on my case, because you hear a lot of caseworkers that are not present or they're too overwhelmed in situations where they see, they get so many emails coming in and they might miss it or that person might get sanctioned, but they turned in the work or they're trying to communicate with them.

With my situation, I was able to, I was blessed enough to be communicated. Great communication. And if I didn't have a good worker, I went back and was like, what's going on? And they would switch them around and you would hear it get switched around. I would think checking up on them, having like a whole package, like, pretty much saying, like, okay, housing you got, making sure they're housed, childcare, all that, and then have them go into the workforce or activity that they're going to do.

Senator, you want to rephrase? Maybe?

Yeah. So, yeah, so I understand what you're saying, and I, and the reason why I'm doing this is because you learn things, right? I did a human trafficking bill last year, and when I hear for lived experience experts or, you know, the people that went through that, I learned things that I never would have thought about asking. And when I was listening to your testimony and then the Chair's follow-up and the way she phrased it.

So my concern is the Chair, very powerful Chair, is going to go, no sanctions for anybody. But that doesn't balance the system because I think there are people out there that will not be the self-motivated person that you are. And so how from your perspective, I'm sure you know people in both sides of that world.

Yes.

Okay. Really? So how as we as legislators, can we do something about the sanctions that put you in that position, but keep the sanctions for the people who need those to make them act, if that makes sense from your world. I mean, from your perspective.

From my perspective, I feel like from 2020, everything kind of like got crazy and they kind of need to react, evaluate all the cases to make sure everybody is eligible for these CalWORKS. Some people might not be eligible anymore. Maybe that's the case of it being sanctioned. Yeah, I understand. Like some are trying, we're trying our best and some are lacking to figure out the difference between that.

I think everybody, just the ones that are lacking, they just don't have the motivation or the knowledge of what they can be or what they can do.

How do we motivate them to be like you? You're gonna be ears sitting on this.

Knowing these resources. I going to school. I didn't know of going to school ever going to get a bachelor's even to be here. I just thought high school diploma. Okay, cool. But they said, oh, you can get to work or go to school. I'm like, hmm, let me try something different. I didn't realize how much more in school that I can learn.

Yes, I want to be a radiology, but I love nonprofit things, but I didn't know what area that could have went through or whatever. So just knowing what the possibilities, maybe telling them about school, asking them questions of what they do want to do. Those sanctions, I feel happen because we're not motivated ourselves to do it, do something we want to do, and they're going to do it. Well, you make them. Hey, you have to hurry up and pick something.

They're just gonna pick something, and they're not gonna enjoy it. Cause it was forced. So given something, they.Yes. Individualize. Yeah.

Before I'm gonna turn to,

Like an IAPP, an IAPP, like an individual program. Like, what do you. They do that for the. I guess, again, just because of my experience. Right. They do that with the developmentally disabled community. Like, what do you want to do?

That's the goal of reimagined CalWORKS.

Okay, so what do you want to do? I'm not just gonna put you here because you're not gonna like it. You're going to spend there 40 hours a week. So I get that. I want to say something to you that is probably not appropriate at this Committee.

Or maybe not say?

We can meet outside. No, just kidding.

I just want you to know that. Look, so my mom was a single mom. She worked in the sheds. We used to steal potatoes out of the field. I don't have a college degree. I dropped out of high school and went to a continuation high school and then finally went back. And I'm one of 40 in the State of California, so don't you ever let anybody tell you that you can't do anything because you can.

That was appropriate.

I like that. Thank you so much. And I agree. I listening to all these panels and everything, and I see you grow up, your generations grow up after you, and we see this. And I'm just grateful that my children are able to see me so they can see them one day at Capitol Hill. You guys can be that. You don't have to be from someone super tough high to be this. In this position.

Praise God for the person you are for your children. Thank you.

Thank you.

Before I go over to Senator Eggman, I just wanted to note Senator Grove, there was a report back in April 2023, and this report found in our meeting, verbatim, found that sanctions which penalize CalWORKS parents who are not meeting program requirements by reducing their monthly grants have the effect of pushing about 60,000 children per month deeper into poverty. 60,000. So I think we're always gonna have the 10%. I mean, I got that in the military. Always the 10%. That messes up for everyone. Right.

But I think 60,000 children per month deeper into poverty is outweighs, at least in my opinion, outweighs, not removing sight.

If I can add, we're punishing the children, not only the mother. We all think in just the mother. We're punishing the sanction and you're punishing the children as well when you sanction.

Senator Eggman,

I was just going to. Just on this very topic, I mean, just to continue saying, I think what you're saying, because I think Senator Grove is getting to an issue. Right. And I think that's something, you know, you need to. You don't want people to abuse the system. Right. And not that basic income is any kind of abuse. Nobody's getting rich. Right.

Nobody's getting rich here. And I think we all, we all should say it's not, people aren't getting rich. But I think so. She was trying to get at that. But what I think you're trying to say is with individualized care and IEP or reimagining CalWORKS, that people will be motivated to do their very best.

And the threat of sanctions or being sanctioned oftentimes comes from not knowing that they could be going into radiology and working at the Taco Bell and then like, oh, that's, I mean, and that's hard to get to and all of those things. So I think what you're saying is if we provide people more of what they actually need, that improves their lives, then we'll find a lot more adherence to the plans.

Yes. Yes.

Okay. And thank you. Also, you have changed two generations.

Thank you.

Maybe even your parents, if they're still living, if they're not, God bless their soul. But I'm sure you help make their end feel so much better, seeing how well you're doing.

Yes. Yes. Thank you so much.

So that notes in our Eggman, they're not getting rich. It's $1,171 a month to survive. Okay, Andrew, we're going to turn to you now.

Great. Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Andrew Shane from GRACE End Child Poverty California. Look, I'll be brief. I just think when you hear Director Johnson talk about this, it's clear where the department's passion and direction lies. And we share their enthusiasm and their disposition that California is well positioned. Given the reforms made by Cal-Ore, Cal WORKS 2.0 and others, the pilots. It's hard to overemphasize, given the severity of the conversation that we just had. And I really applaud all the questions about the cuts.

The pilots really are a generational opportunity. It's not overstating it. It is the first time since 1996 that the Federal Government is going to allow up to five states. That's in the statutes. It's max of five. To set aside the WPR, which the data simply show have failed. And I'm not going to get into that right now, but it's very clear.

And just one example is that we can actually finally recognize the unpaid caregiving work that's so often done by low-income women of color, but has been arbitrarily excluded under TANF. So we have every chance to lead and no reason not to maximize this opportunity to make policy changes to ensure a successful pilot and improve family outcomes.

And I would just say that as many pieces of progress have been made, we have to be clear eyed about the program we have today, as well as what the cuts would do. I'm not going to belabor that, obviously. I would just point to the report that Spark put out last fall called designed to keep you down. The first couple pages, as Director Johnson and Ms. Cubansiy earlier noted, California does have a much stronger TANF program than nearly any other state.

And every other page is about how we have maintained and in fact, chosen several policies that are designed to keep you down, that are holding back student parents, and the rest of the caseload. I just want to briefly comment on why we cannot apply on Cal-Ore and 2.0 alone. Yes, the framework of CalWORKS measurements will be in place, but we will be measuring the flaws in the program we have today, or if the cuts are allowed to happen, even reversions on those.

And some of the outcome measures that the Federal Government has identified are employment and earnings. So again, substance, employment on that end of the spectrum, and then, I'm not trying to be cheeky, literally, family stabilization or family stability and well being are some of the to be determined outcomes. And so in taking away potentially the family stabilization program and the totality of the cuts, I think it is fair to say that we will see not the results in five years that we would want to see.

So what are those policy changes? We have a shared trailer bill language with the Department and stakeholders, and I want to be clear that either as a part of or in conjunction with the pilot, because, again, with only five states, there's no guaranteed outcome. This budget, though, must take action. And many of the changes that I'm talking about are simply rearranging existing processes to be family-supported and family-centered first, quite frankly, to stop punishing families and follow the science.

And so, Senator, I appreciate your questions earlier. What I would say briefly is that in terms of the sanction policy, we're only trying to achieve that balance. Federal law requires a sanction policy for those participants who are refusing to participate. So if there is someone in that situation, we can, must, and still will continue to apply that sanction.

We have, however, several pieces, most notably I would just say we have fails to that language, which means that for all the pieces you talked about, if someone's not informed, if they can't get a hold of their worker, if the paperwork is lost, all the sort of churn style bureaucratic issues that can still lead to a sanction because we have fails to on the books even when someone is in good faith trying to participate.

Second, to place families at the center of the program and trust mothers, again, almost exclusively black and brown mothers, to determine their pathway to success. And Senator Grove, you hit this on the head earlier.

We are really trying to make sure that we're removing artificial barriers like the hours requirements, like upfront job search, like the restrictions on activities, so that we can have self-determined pathways, so that folks are able to do what they know is best for their children and families if they need more in-depth assistance, of course, deeper engagement on barrier removal and on appraisal and on assessment. Third, to expand family stabilization program.

I know that's kind of a clunker given the current conversation, but I would just say we were on record last year. We already identified this as one of the most effective parts of the program. I won't belabor it, but we believe it should be expanded to eligible applicants.

You'll have to start wrapping up.

Yep. Okay, so the last two are to improve access to supportive services. We just heard from Joy that even though we have stage one from day one on the books, that parents are still bringing their kids to classes. And then of course, to repeal the penalty pass through, we hear from counties themselves that of course, having that threat of the penalty is a barrier to the culture change we need.

I would just in closing, say that we just saw more data from the guaranteed income that providing basic cash income almost doubled employment in Albuquerque, following on St. Paul, like the data just continues to show that providing basic income without stigma, without strings, is the pathway for out of poverty.

Thank you so much, Andrew. That was actually going to be one of my questions to you Director. The four points of the trailer bill language. Has the Department had a chance to review them? The stakeholder proposal to use federal. Yes. Have you had a chance to review those four different points?

We're currently in review of the proposals that are coming forward.

Yeah, my curiosity is guiding me, is taking me to the part on the family sanctions, to federal requirements. That part, would you say we have additional, stricter sanctions than the federal requirements?

I would say that, yes, our requirements in California exceed the minimums that are in the federal law. And just to, again, I referenced that this was an area of particular interest in our workgroup conversations related to alternatives to WPR. I think we want to fully understand, with the application coming from the Federal Government, just how broad they're willing to go in terms of policy change. And that's another to be determined. Right.

Is it really just about the evaluation outcomes, or will we actually have opportunities for policy change within the construct of the pilot so that that'll be something that we'll be looking towards?

May I, Madam Chair? Just, I want to briefly point out that the request for information that Director Johnson previously pointed to did acknowledge that the Federal Government, HHS, is recognizing that maximum family grant, which we've gotten rid of, and state sanction policies are proven barriers to family outcomes and success. And so whether, again, that's why we say in conjunction with or as a part of the pilot application.

Okay. And then I think you mentioned it, Senator Grove, you mentioned IPP, when we deal with the individuals with development disabilities. No, no, I know, but your point, your number two, is kind of related to that. Talk to us about the Department's push towards this kind of idea.

Sure. Sure. So what's currently required right now for participants in CalWORKS is the welfare to work plan. That's the name of the plan. And I think, as you heard referenced in earlier panels, too. Right. It's a combination of the CalWORKS 2.0 effort, which I will summarize very simply as listening to the person in front of you, what are the goals that they have? Right. To the points that are being made and have been made of, these are the options you have versus.Let's talk about what opportunities exist and what interests you.

Right. And so I think that's the key change in that effort that we continue to strive towards, and that, in fact, through the conversations that we had related to the development of the framework that a family owns and embraces what's in their plan. It's not that it's a mystery or they don't understand it, that they actually, they're excited about it.

This is something that they have going forward. And so that's absolutely our intent, to continue to build on that effort, really looking at what the interest is of the family and the person that we're supporting, and then using our tools to help them get there. And that's the goal.

I'll turn to you right after. Senator Eggman. I'm going to throw a curveball here. Eileen, I don't know if you're prepared to answer this question. On the county level, what barriers do we see to access the childcare for CalWORKS recipients?

Sorry. Actually, I don't know that I am prepared to answer that question right now. I'd have to go back and check with our Members and see specifically if they have identified barriers to childhood.

Wanted to hear a county level perspective?

There shouldn't be. I mean, it is an entitlement and there's continuous eligibility from day one, so.

Okay. Sonia is itching to answer this.

Oh, go for it.

Thank you so much. I apologize.

Thanks, Sonia Schrager Russo at the Legislative Analyst Office to provide some context for that, based on what we've heard from counties, as Miss Perron mentioned, awareness is one element of knowing about childcare and being able to access childcare.

County workers lack of, college?

No, no client. In terms of client. Yeah, client awareness. We often hear from counties that there's just so much information to present when a client is coming into CalWORKs that some counties may decide, we're going to talk about childcare on another day, and it just gets lost in the shuffle. So that's one potential issue in terms of accessibility.

And another item that has been raised by various counties, I think, especially probably in the rural areas of California, is just availability of childcare, which is obviously a far broader issue that many of us deal with. But in rural environments, there are just too few child care providers in general. So they're experiencing the same issues many parents experience in terms of getting into a child care provider.

Director, anything to add to that?

Sure. I'll just say, as formerly the child care branch chief at CDSS, that's actually how I entered the Department. You know, we looked really closely at this question, and we actually sat down in more than half of the counties in orientation to the LAO's reference and point here. It is overwhelming to both need support and then get the 50 supportive services on a PowerPoint in front of you and then understand in two weeks from now, "oh, what was?", you know. Right.

So the additional conversation that we're always offering. right. What supports and really making sure that that conversation and communication is happening between whether it's an eligibility worker, a social worker, and the family that they're serving, to really, again, use the tools that they have is a big piece of this.

We actually also, and just Legislature and Administration have made historic investments in the space over the last few years, not only to the points that were made related to access to the actual subsidy, but also facilities, dollars and infrastructure. So we really have been looking at child care deserts as an issue to be able to ensure that that's not a barrier.

And then I would say we looked at the issue more holistically, too, because it's a different question to say who's accessing calWORK stage one child care and who's accessing a child care subsidy. Right. It can be an early head Start, a preschool program. We have a much array, so we have refined our own data, also included in our Cal or measures, to be able to answer that question more holistically, as opposed to just answering this particular program.

But again, I think the offering of the resource kind of on a consistent basis, and as things come up, is really key to being able to make sure families have the opportunity to participate in it.

Thank you, Director. Senator Eggman.

I just wanted to go back to the issue of program fidelity, because when I hear Director Johnson talk about it, I mean, these are fantastic things that are going on, but then when you hear from the lived experience, it depends on the caseworker, "I didn't know, I didn't get a call back", all those kinds of things. So how do we ensure fidelity of 2.0 down to the, to the, to the micro issue level?

Appreciate that question very much, Senator. And I think, again, our framework puts us in that space. So not only with our framework of CalOR do we have a different ability to be transparent about access to the referrals. Right. It's a dashboard. It's public, it's on our website right now. And again, you can look at it by county, but it is then requiring state staff, working with county staff on technical assistance and support.

I will tell you, always, my best days in this work are working with people that we serve, communicating, connecting with them. And so I think those touch points are also critical for us at the state level to understand what the barriers are so that we can make sure in any particular county, we can follow up and do that assistance and support and understand what the challenge is to offering it. It is a staffing issue, we're really understanding it and unpacking it.

So I will just say that the framework has a component in it with the self assessment and the program improvement plans, for us to be more intentional, to be able to address that. And again, I referenced participant satisfaction being one of the things that we have never measured historically that is embedded in this framework, and it's really critical to, again, be able to address where that's not working.

Okay. And I just want to acknowledge that there are as many kind of old myths out there about people who received Taniff as those who deliver it. And we all happen to be women for the most part. So I'll just leave it there. But thank you.

Joy, I know earlier you wanted to mention something on childcare. I didn't want to cut you off there.

Oh, yeah. Well, they answered it pretty well. Just when I was getting childcare, I got just a piece of paper that he were able to give us, and it had bananas, C4s, and that stuff on there, although those weren't available and I had to reach out. I ended up reaching out to a church in my area and was like, I don't go to this church.

Was that on the list that you got?

No, it was not on the list. I went

Grace to God, no one was available.

Yes, yeah, grace to God. I said, hey, to the children area. Does anybody know daycares? And that's how I got it for my children. And they went there for their whole time of going to daycare. So it is very hard to find and to be able to trust and.

It's hard to keep that list up to date. Right.

And in my head.

Oh, sorry.

In my head, I'm like, why don't CalWORKs have, like, their own daycare for CalWORKs? People? Like, why can't you guys, like, money, budgets, all that work out? Go ahead. So sorry.

We actually had a program that I also supported in a former life called Child Development careers, where we actually supported CalWORKs participants to become childcare providers. So great idea. And something that we have looked at,

Does that still exist?

It does still exist. It's not as widespread as it used to be, but it's certainly an opportunity, and we obviously have a lot of additional opportunities to enter the early childhood workforce more broadly now and different initiatives to do that.

The piece that I was also just going to mention when Joy referenced bananas, those are the childcare resource referral agencies that are available in every county, in every state, sometimes more than one organization, and they provide that list that is part of what is a funded responsibility for those resource control agencies to keep those lists up to date. Now, the question about, is it the right fit for the child? All good questions, right?

You might have a program, it might not be the right fit for you and your family based on availability, a lot of different factors. And then, of course, there are some times where they're actually at capacity. So the other piece I would say about that is we are continuing to improve our data systems to be able to have that consumer education and that ability to look online much more accessible.

It is right now you can type in, find childcare, and you can punch in your zip code, and you can find providers and programs in your community.

Thank you, Senator Grove.

Thank you. So I just want to make sure I heard you right. I just want to make sure I heard you write, Joy, I apologize that when you got the CalWORKs referral for childcare and you were going to school and trying to make things work and be an example for your children, the programs that were available through CalWORKs were not available in your area?

Not available, nor fit the timing, my time management, of how I could go to school and do what I needed to do in my activities to have them go there.

And you went to a church?

I went to a church to find the daycare. It wasn't my usual church, so it was a church that was in my city. And so I said, yes.

Did that work for you?

It did work. It was great.

And can I just. And just because I'm curious, because there's a lot of people that say, you know, faith based organizations can't receive funds for whatever. Or whatever.

Was it necessary? I'm sorry.

Sorry. Were you able to use, like, CalWORKs programs or your grants that you get for child care to pay the church or. The church didn't charge you or.

It wasn't within the church, so it was a daycare that the people at the church knew of.

Oh, great.

So that's how I just. Word of mouth. I went to search. I was really. Yeah, yeah. And so they said, oh, here's a daycare you could charge. And I tried it out, and it worked. Thank God it worked. Okay, so that's.

Thank you. I was just trying to clarify that. Thank you.

Perfect. I don't think we have any further questions on this issue. Thank you so much. I appreciate it, Joy.

Thank you.

You're a joy to have. Pretty sure you hear that all the time. We're moving on to issue number three. We're going to be hearing about the governor's proposed cuts to, more cuts, Senator Eggman, to a program serving immigrants. Joining us from the Department.

Good morning, I believe, or maybe still Good afternoon. Eliana Kamowitz. I am the acting Director of the office of Equity at the Department of Social Services. I am also overseeing the immigrant integration branch. So thank you for having me here. Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I am going to begin by addressing your second question on the agenda regarding the effects of the proposed funding reductions in immigration legal services on individuals served and the overall capacity of the network.

The Department does not expect the elimination of the temporary protected status funding and the reduction of CSU immigration legal services funding to have an immediate impact on clients currently receiving immigration services. Since prior year funding and the reduced CSU funding from this fiscal year is expected to cover existing services through June 2025. This will allow clients time to seek other legal assistance and allow service providers time to explore other sources of funding.

While some individuals may have to find a private attorney, others may still be able to access free state funded immigration legal services providers throughout the state through the separate Immigration Services funding network. As background since fiscal year 2018-19, the state has provided $10 million General Fund allocation to the Department of Social Services to provide immigration services to individuals with temporary protected status, unaccompanied undocumented minors, and other populations.

With the elimination of the temporary protected status funding, many immigration service providers will continue to receive some funding through our annual immigration services funding. Similarly, clients impacted by the proposed reduction in the CSU immigration legal services funding may be able to continue to access pro Bono legal services through the immigration services funding network of providers.

As referenced in the agenda, the Governor's Budget is proposing to revert 5.2 million to the General Fund and maintain 1.8 million in funding this year and ongoing for CSU immigration legal services. The Department will work closely with the CSU Chancellor's office and our nonprofit immigration legal service providers to determine which populations among students, staff, and faculty, and potentially which campuses to prioritize for continued funding.

In some communities, there may be other immigration legal services organizations and attorney collaboratives that can provide free or reduced price immigration services funded through private donors, foundations, or local governments. While the overall reduction in funding will result in a more competitive application process for service providers and likely a lower number of clients served, some existing clients may still be able to access state funded assistance.

The immigration legal service providers currently providing services at the CSU campuses and many of those providing services through the temporary protected status funding also receive the State Immigration Services funding awards. The annual 45 million immigration services funding will allow the state to continue to maintain a core high quality network of probono immigration legal service providers across California and continue to serve thousands of immigrants. Now I will turn to the question about the Children's Holistic Immigration Representation project, also known as CHIRP.

The CHIRP is a pilot project that funds nonprofit organizations to provide both immigration legal representation as well as case management services to immigrant youth, many of whom arrive to the country as unaccompanied undocumented minors. The pilot was funded through a one time 15.3 million allocation in fiscal year 2022 to 23 services began in September 2022 and are expected to end in September 2024.

The Department awarded this funding to one program administrator and 69 nonprofit organizations across California to provide immigration legal representation and case management services to help youth access educational supports, enroll in medical and mental health services, and access food, housing, and mentoring supports available in their communities. Thus far, over 600 youth have received immigration legal services. They have received referrals to other support services and have been accompanied to other social service appointments.

Youth served under this project have greatly benefited from having the additional support of social workers and case managers who help them navigate and access public services in their communities. After the project funding ends, most of the nonprofit organizations will continue to receive state funding to provide immigration legal services, but will no longer state funding to retain their social workers who support the case management services. Finally, I will turn to your question regarding the rapid response funding.

The rapid response funding appropriated by the Governor and the Legislature has allowed the Department to quickly provide state funding for critical assistance to non us citizen immigrants in their time of need when federal funding is unavailable. Since 2019, the Department has used the funding to address immigrant needs arising from changes in federal immigration policy, increased migrant arrivals at the southwest border, as well as reoccurring natural disasters impacting California immigrants who are ineligible for federal assistance.

If no additional rapid response funding is provided, the Department will no longer be able to provide these types of services once authorized funds are exhausted. Given the fluidity of the situation at the border, including the fluctuations of the numbers of arriving migrants and changing federal border policies, it is difficult to determine exactly what the impact will be of reducing or ending rapid response funding for the border. While the Federal Government is responsible for immigration policy and processing.

Over the last five years, California has served as a model of partnership with our local governments and nonprofit organizations to undertake humanitarian efforts in border communities. Beginning in 2023, the Border mission transitioned back to a pre-pandemic, non-profit led sheltering model focused on helping vulnerable populations with continued state support. Through Department grant funding and technical assistance. Our nonprofit partners provide sheltering services for migrant arrivals utilizing both state and federal funding as well as private philanthropic donations.

While state funding was designed to supplement, not replace, federal funding, the state's budget allocations have allowed the nonprofits to have access to upfront funding while they receive federal reimbursement and to cover operational expenditures not covered by federal funding. Congress recently allocated 650 million to the Federal Shelter and Services program currently administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.

The Federal Shelter and Services program provides funds to non federal entities, including the nonprofits working on our California border mission, to provide sheltering and other eligible services to migrants encountered by federal border officials and released from custody while awaiting their immigration proceedings. It is uncertain at this time what portion of this funding will be awarded to entities in California. If no additional state rapid response funding is available

nonprofit organizations serving migrants at the border would have to cover their expenses through private philanthropic donations in any available federal funding. California will continue advocating for federal funding to provide humanitarian assistance for newly arriving individuals and families at our southern border. Thank you for your time today. I'm available to answer questions.

Thomas, will you be giving any additional comment?

Yes. Thomas Locke, Department of Finance to address your first question on the reasoning for the reductions and temporary protective services in CSU. Due to the budget shortfall, the Administration proposed these reductions to begin addressing the out year negative balances. Although funding for this program is proposed to be reduced, these programs will remain authorized in state statute and as mentioned before by my colleague as well, finance is committed to working with the Legislature and is open to discussing alternatives for these programs.

Thomas, you, you mentioned something I was going to ask because we're essentially, the TPS portion will be not moving forward. It would still be in statute, the program, so we wouldn't have to just delay, it It'd be okay. If we wanted to ever Fund it again. The program in itself would still be.

Uh, I do not have the answer to your question.

I can answer that question. So the TPS funding is a budget bill Item, but it goes through our WIC section that authorizes our General immigration legal services funding and that will remain in statute.

Because I was going to ask if we could just delay because I was scared that by just cutting it we were just have to start all over to first put the program back in and then try to find funding.

No, again, the temporary protected status funding was a supplemental funding addition to our General immigration legal services program that we, that is already authorized in our welfare institutions code.

So if we ever want to come back,

You can, yes

It'd be easy just to do it. Okay. Okay. We'll move on right now to LAO.

Juwan Trotter, Legislative Analyst Office. So I'll start off with the temporary Protective status services program. So it's our understanding that some of the initiatives under the TPS program, as has been mentioned, will continue to be supported through the Immigration Services funding program, at least in the short run.

With that being said, the Legislature may want to monitor how this elimination will impact the number of immigrants being served, as well as continue to ask questions regarding what the long term plan will be for this, for these services moving forward. Additionally, from our conversations with the Department, it's our understanding that that none of the funding from the 2023-2024 budget has been encumbered to date, and so

Has not what?

It has been has not been encumbered to date because of the governor's proposed reductions.

So moving on to the CSU Legal services program is understanding that there remains about $8.8 million available to be spent through June 2025. As was mentioned, this includes $7 million from the 2022-23 budget allocation and $1.8 million from the 2023-24 budget allocation. So with that, we think the Legislature may want to use that time to kind of better understand how that reduction in funding will impact the populations being served.

Okay, thank you so much. Turning over now to Policy Director, Immigrant Defense Advocates.

Good afternoon, honorable Chair, members. My name is Jackie Gonzalez and I'm the Policy Director at Immigrant Defense Advocates. I appear before you today as someone who spent a decade providing immigration legal services to highlight the importance of the investments that California has made in its immigrant communities. I want to emphasize the word investments when describing the provision of legal services. Because these services do much more than help an individual obtain legal status.

They actually offer a direct pathway to social and economic benefits for the individual, the family, their community, and ultimately our state. This presentation will cover three proposed cuts that we implore the Legislature to reject. The first is the TPS cut. That program was funded at $10 million. The governor's proposal is to eliminate it. This program covers individuals who receive TPS, the status given to individuals from certain countries fleeing unstable and unsafe conditions. Historically Central Americans most recently examples are Afghans, Ukrainians, fleeing war.

The TPS program also encompasses really unique initiatives. I'll give you a few examples of a non exhaustive list. The Black Immigrant and Refugee Equity project, launched to support black migrants who face disproportionate rates of detention and isolation while in immigration detention the Deported Veterans Legal Services Project, which provides outreach and legal services to deported veterans and the Farm Worker Labor Rights Project, which provides much needed legal services to agricultural workers in our state. Again, not an exhaustive list.

Over 2500 individuals have been served through the combination of these programs in 22-23 fiscal year alone. The second proposed cut would reduce the CSU immigration legal services program by nearly 75% from an annual allocation of 7 million ongoing to 1.8. That cut has taken effect this year. The CSU Legal Services program is a highly successful model that provides quality legal services at all 23 CSU campuses.

Since its inception in 2019, that program has conducted over 11,000, one on one consultations and provided full scope legal rep to over 7000 individuals. In addition, over 4,500 students with DACA applications. This program you'll hear from students today has radically changed their lives, allowing them to complete their education, providing them and their family with a path to legalization and, relatedly, economic stabilization.

Alums of these services not only have BAs, they're pursuing graduate degrees in highly specialized fields which are a benefit to our state and fulfilling personal professional goals they never thought possible. The administration's rationale for this cut is to align it with the UC system, which is a grossly inequitable solution. When one considers the UC Legal Services program covers nine campuses to the CSU's 23, and they have an estimated undocumented student population of 4000 to the CSU's over 10,000.

Everyone knows CSU is the nation's largest public University, and the families that access these campuses are not the same. profile of the students attending the UC's. The third program and final is the CHIRP, the Children's Holistic Immigration Representation project, which would be discontinued effective this September. No money has been allocated to this program. It is a first of its kind initiative.

It's a response that was actually put forward by the State of California in 2022 due to the record number of unaccompanied children arriving at our borders. That number has only continued to grow since 2022. It provides holistic services, as Eliana mentioned, and has helped hundreds of children, not just with their legal case, these are children, but getting education, getting them enrolled in school, mental health services, food and housing assistance. Ending this program just as it is getting started would be devastating to that population.

Finally, the Administration has suggested that immigrants served by the CHIRP, CSU, and TPS programs can access funding through other state programs or by hiring private counsel. The reality is that the immigrants served on these programs again are unaccompanied children, students, and TPS holders in precarious situations who lack the resources to pay for private counsel and very often reside in regions that lack quality pro Bono services.